The Pilgrim Way Commentary on
the Book of Romans
by Dr. John Cereghin
Pastor
Grace Baptist Church of
Smyrna, Delaware
April 2013
1
The Pilgrim Way Commentary on Romans
Ninth Edition
April 2013
by Dr. John Cereghin
PO Box 66
Smyrna DE 19977
[email protected]
website- www.pilgrimway.org
2
Table of Contents
Apology
Introduction
Booklist
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapter 10
Chapter 11
Chapter 12
Chapter 13
Chapter 14
Chapter 15
Chapter 16
Bibliography
4
7
17
35
77
95
121
141
175
205
227
273
295
313
331
353
373
385
401
417
3
Apology for This Work
This commentary on Romans follows in a long line of other works by divines of the past
as they have sought to study and expound this, probably the greatest of all Paul’s
writings. It has been well said that he who masters Paul’s arguments in Romans
masters Christian doctrine, so it is no wonder that this book is a favorite of
commentators.
This work grew out of over 25 years of both preaching through Romans in three
pastorates in Maryland, Delaware and North Carolina as well as teaching through the
epistle as an instructor at Maryland Baptist Bible College in Elkton, Maryland. I needed
my own notes and outlines as I taught and preached from Romans, so this fuller
commentary flows from those notes and outlines. Thus, the layout of this commentary
is a practical one, written by a preacher to be preached from in the pulpit or to be taught
in a Sunday School. It was not written from an isolated study of a theologian who had
little contact with people or practical ministerial experience. There are many such
commentaries on the market and they tend to be someone dull and not very practical in
their application. It is written as something of a theological reference manual to me,
filled with quotes and outlines from various books in my library. The layout and format
are designed to help me in my preaching, teaching and personal study of this book. I
figured there may be others out there who may benefit from this work which is why I
make it available, but the work is basically laid out in a selfish manner, for my benefit
and assistance. That is why I call this as “reference commentary”. You, as the reader,
hopefully can find some profit in this!
This commentary cannot be easily classified into any single theological system. I
believe that no single theological system is an accurate presentation of Scriptural truth
in and of itself. When Charles Spurgeon once wrote “There is no such thing as
preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called
Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing
else”, he displayed a most unfortunate theological hubris. Calvinism is a human,
flawed, limited and uninspired theological system, as any other human theological
system. There is some truth there, as there is in any theological system, but it ranks no
better than other competing systems, such as Arminianism (which is nothing more than
a modified version of Calvin’s teachings), dispensationalism, covenant theology,
Lutheranism, Romanism, Orthodox theology, pre-wrath rapture, take your pick. All
these systems are flawed as they are all the products of human attempts to understand
and systematize Biblical presentations. They can all make contributions to our overall
understandings of the truth but none may claim to be the only correct such presentation,
at the expense of all others. Knowing the human impossibility for absolute neutrality
and the human love for theological systems, I readily admit that I cannot be as
dispassionate and uninfluenced by human teachings in these pages as I would like. No
man can be. But I have made every attempt not to allow my own personal systems
influence my understanding of what the clear teachings of Scripture is.
4
I have freely consulted a wide variety of commentaries and sermons for insights and
other views of various texts that I might have missed. As the old preacher once
remarked “I milked a lot of cows but I churned my own butter.” Direct quotes are
attributed to their proper source to prevent that unpardonable sin of literary theft. But
simply because I quoted a writer should not be viewed as an endorsement of all that he
wrote or of his theological system. I selected the quote because I found it interesting
and useful, not because I am in any degree of agreement regarding the rest of his
teachings. In this sense, I have tried to follow the form of Charles Spurgeon’s Treasury
of David, where he quoted a wide variety of other writers. I consider his commentary on
the Psalms to be the greatest commentary ever in reference to its format.
This commentary is based on the text of our English Received Version, commonly
referred to as the King James Version or the Authorized Version. I believe that this is
the most preserved English translation available to us and that it is the superior
translation in English. I can see no good reason to use or accept any of the modern
versions, especially the current “flavor of the month” of the New Evangelicals and
apostate fundamentalists, the corrupt and mis-named English Standard Version. When
it comes to these modern, critical text versions, I reject them for a variety of reasons.
One major reason is that they have not been proven on the field of battle. I have liver
spots older that are older than the English Standard Version, but I am expected to toss
my English Received Text, over 400 years old, and take up this new translation, whose
ink is still barely dry? How many battles has the ESV won? How many missionaries
have done great exploits with an NIV? What revivals have been birth and nurtured with
an NASB? We will stick with the translations and texts that our fathers have used and
that God has blessed. We are also favorably inclined to the Geneva Bible, Tyndale
Bible, Bishops Bible, and other “cousins” of our English text. The Greek text used is the
underlying text of our English Received Text and its 1769 revision, which is the text
most widely in use today by God’s remnant.
Each verse is commented upon, with the English text, followed by the Received Greek
text, with Strong’s numbers and grammatical coding, such as Greek verb tenses and
parts of speech (for the Greek text). The English grammatical notes are limited to the
tenses of the corresponding Greek verbs, for I believe the study of the verb tenses is
the most important element of the usage of the Greek text, even moreso than word
studies. Not every Greek word is commented upon, only unusual or important ones. I
am guilty of “picking and choosing” my word studies instead of presenting complete
word studies for every word. That system would simply be too unwieldy for my
purposes.
I have also decided to do some textual studies, mainly comparing the King James
readings with the English Standard Version. I also refer to the readings in the English
translations that preceded the King James Bible for sake of comparison and to examine
how the English Received Text readings developed from the Tyndale Bible, through the
Coverdale Bible, the Geneva Bible and the Bishops Bible.
5
The presupposition of this commentary is that what the Bible says is so and that we will
not change the text to suit our theological fancy. It says what it says and that is what we
must accept, else we will be found unfaithful stewards of the Word of God, a judgment
we fear. We will not amend our text but will take it as it is the best we can.
This commentary certainly is not perfect, nor is it the final presentation of my
understanding and application of the book of Romans. A commentary over 25 years in
the making can never truly said to be finished. As new insights are granted by the Holy
Spirit and as my understanding of the epistle deepens, additional material will be added
and sections will have to be re-written. One is never truly “finished” with any theological
book, especially a commentary. As one deepens and grows in his relation with the
Lord, so does his theological understandings and that should be reflected in one’s
writings.
This book was also written as a theological legacy to my four children. They will need to
be mighty for God in their generation for their days will certainly be darker than the
generation their father grew up in. This book is an expression not only of the heart of a
preacher in the early 21st century but also of a Christian father for his children, so they
may more fully understand what their father believed and preached during his ministry.
It is my sincere prayer that this unpretentious contribution to the body of Christian
commentary literature will be a blessing to the remnant of God’s saints in the earth as
we approach the coming of our Lord.
6
Introduction to Romans
Author- The Apostle Paul. There is no serious challenges to Pauline authorship, even
by rank Liberals. Romans is Pauline in language and style. Romans has the mark of
Paul's spirit of language and style. The Church has been unanimous as to its testimony
of Pauline authorship
Date of writing- around A.D. 56-58.
Place of Writing- probably from Corinth.
Reasons for writing. There is no apparent reason than for Paul to touch base with this
Church and to make known his desire to visit them and to preach at Rome. Paul
probably intended to use the Roman Church as a base for proposed evangelistic trips
into the western half of the Empire, especially Spain (15:24,28). Some traditions (mainly
Welsh) have Paul making it as far as the British Isles before his second arrest. It is
possible that the Roman church was suffering doctrinally due to the strong pagan
influence of Rome as well as the strong Jewish element there. This may be why Paul
puts so much doctrinal material in this book, to strengthen a church that was under
doctrinal attack. The Jewish colony at Rome was, according to Cicero in BC 59, large,
clannish, powerful and influential. Paul also desired to establish the church at Rome
1. As to the doctrine of justification by faith alone
2. As to holiness as a fruit and evidence of saving faith
3. As to the correct use and place of the moral law
4. As to practical Christianity
5. To promote union between Jews and Gentiles
6. To prepare the church for a future visit by Paul
It has been suggested that Paul, later in his life, desired to write a summation of his
thought and doctrine, and did so in Romans
Style. Paul uses Hellenistic Greek. Why not in Latin, the language of Rome? Certainly
an educated man like Paul should have been able to write in Latin. Greek, not Latin,
was the universal language of the day. All the early Roman bishops had Greek names.
Even Clement of Rome wrote his epistles in Greek, not Latin. Romans is typically
Pauline, is often abrupt, impetuous, elliptical, with occasional bursts of lofty,
impassioned eloquent. Paul argues as a trained rabbi, with forcible expressions, pithy
sentences, apt metaphors and winning appeals
The Church at Rome (not to be confused with the Church of Rome). We are unsure how
it started but may have been formed by Roman soldiers stationed in Palestine who were
converted under the apostolic ministry and Roman Jews in Jerusalem for the events of
Acts 2 taking the Gospel back to Rome and forming a church. It is just as possible that
Christians from churches in Asia Minor or Europe that were founded by Paul may have
migrated to Rome to start this work
7
Other Remarks
1. In discussing doctrine, Paul uses a "question and answer" method in Romans
2. Paul only gives a list of personal greetings in two epistles, Romans
Colossians Colossians, two churches he had not visited at the time of his writings
3. Samuel Taylor Coleridge said Romans was the most profound book in
existence
4. Martin Luther said Romans embodied the Gospel in its purest form
5. Romans can rightly be called "The Gospel According to Paul"
6. Paul's longest letter and his most formal letter, on par with Ephesians
7. Chrysostom has this epistle read to him twice a week
8. Romans is one of the "four capital epistles" (Romans, Galatians, 1,2
Corinthians) which are basic to understanding Paul's thought
9. "The Book of Romans, theologically, leads the sinner, step by step, from his
most wretched state into the highest burnt offering life (Romans 1-8 & 12-16; Chapters
9-11 are a parenthesis in the Book to Israel). The introduction and theme of the Book
are carefully laid down (1:1-17). The theme is easily set forth as: 'The Power of the
Gospel of Christ Unto Salvation to Every one that Believeth." After the reader is brought
through an extended outline of the particular sins of the Gentiles and the Jews (1:183:20), then the righteousness for the sinner is revealed through Jesus Christ (3:21-22),
against the backdrop of the universality of sin in all mankind (3:23). The sinner,
theologically, is brought to that distinctive Reformation emphasis of Justification by Faith
(3:24-5:11). The Adamic Sin Nature is then acknowledged (5:12-21), and finally, the
doctrine of sanctification is introduced and revealed (6:1-8:39) (O. Talmadge Spence,
"The Biblical Doctrine of Sanctification", part two, in Straightway, Volume 25, number 7,
July, 1997, page 6)."
10. I think it can be rightly said that he who masters the doctrinal arguments in
Romans masters Christian doctrine. Thus, Romans may be the most important
doctrinal book in the Bible, followed by Ephesians.
11. Romans is the most influential books of the Bible. Augustine was converted
through reading Romans 13:13,14. The Protestant Reformation was launched when
Martin Luther came to understand the meaning of God's righteousness, and that "the
just shall live by faith". John Wesley received assurance of salvation through hearing
the preface to Luther's commentary on Romans read in a Moravian house church on
Aldersgate Street in London.
12. “Paul and some unnamed objector. As Paul sets forth the gospel, he seems
to hear this objector raising all kinds of arguments against it. The apostle replies to his
opponent's questions one by one. By the time he is finished, Paul has answered every
major attitude that man can take regarding the gospel of the grace of God. Sometimes
the objections are clearly stated; sometimes they are only implied. But whether stated or
implied, they all revolve around the gospel—the good news of salvation by grace
through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, apart from the works of the law. (William
MacDonald, Believer's Bible Commentary).”
We will think of Romans as dealing with eleven main questions:
(1) What is the subject of the Letter? (1:1, 9, 15, 16);
(2) What is the gospel? (1:1-17);
8
(3) Why do men need the gospel? (1:18-3:20);
(4) According to the gospel, how can ungodly sinners be justified by a holy God?
(3:21-31);
(5) Does the gospel agree with the OT Scripture? (4:1-25);
(6) What are the benefits of justification in the believer's life? (5:1-21);
(7) Does the teaching of salvation by grace through faith permit or even
encourage sinful living? (6:1-23);
(8) What is the relationship of the Christian to the law? (7:1-25);
(9) How is the Christian enabled to live a holy life? (8:1-39);
(10) Does the gospel, by promising salvation to both Jews and Gentiles, mean
that God has broken His promises to His earthly people, the Jews? (9:1-11:36);
(11) How should those who have been justified by grace respond in their
everyday lives? (12:1-16:27). (William MacDonald, Believer's Bible Commentary).”
“In Romans, Christ is always viewed upon earth. He has died to sin, is alive in Christ,
and is perfectly justified; he is walking through the world in that condition, and has to
yield himself up to God. In Colossians you get him dead, as in Romans, but also
risen with Christ, and he has a hope laid up for him in heaven. In Ephesians you get a
step further, as there he is sitting in the heavenly places. Each of these three is a
Christian state, so far (John Nelson Darby, Notes and Jottings, page 66).”
Key words in Romans
1. Righteousness, used 66 times
2. Faith, 62 times
3. Justification/justify, 17 times
4. Impute, 19 times
5. In Christ, 33 times
6. Law, 78 times
7. Sin, 60 times
8. Flesh, 20 times
9. Death, 42 times
Names and Titles of Christ in Romans
1. Jesus Christ 1:1
2. Son of God 1:4
3. Lord Jesus Christ 1:7
4. Christ Jesus 3:24
5. Our Propitiation 3:24,25
6. God(s Righteousness 3:24,25
7. Our Lord 4:24; 7:25
8. Our Sin-bearer 4:25
9. Our Justifier 4:25
10. Christ 5:6
11. The Gift of Eternal Life 6:23
12. Firstborn Among Many Brethren
8:29
13. His Own Son 8:32
14. God Blessed Forever 9:5
15. A Stumblingblock and a Rock of
Offense 9:33
16. End of the Law for Righteousness
10:4
17. Lord 10:13
18. Deliverer 11:26
19. Lord of the Dead and the Living
14:9
20. Minister of the Circumcision 15:8
Names and Titles of God in Romans
1. Our Father 1:7
2. Creator 1:25
3. One God 3:30
4. Lord 4:8
9
9. God of Peace 16:20
10. Everlasting God 16:26
11. God Only Wise 16:27
5. Abba, Father 8:15
6. The Living God 9:26
7. Lord of Sabaoth 9:29
8. Lord Over All 10:12
Names and Titles of the Holy Spirit in Romans
1. Spirit of Holiness 1:4
4. Spirit of Life 8:2
2. Holy Ghost 5:5; 9:1
5. Spirit of God 8:9,14; 15:19
3. Spirit 8:1
6. Spirit of Christ 8:9
Old Testament references in Romans
1. The just shall live by faith 1:17 with Habakkuk 2:4
2. Render(according to their deeds 2:6 with Psalm 62:12
3. God no respecter of persons 2:11 with Deuteronomy 10:17
4. God's name blasphemed 2:24 with Isaiah 52:5
5. Justified in speaking 3:4 with Psalm 51:4
6. None righteous 3:10 with Psalm 14:1,3
7. None understand 3:11 with Psalm 14:2
8. All gone out of the way 3:12 with Psalm 14:3
9. Throat an open sepulchre 3:13 with Psalm 5:9; 140:3
10. Mouth full of cursing 3:14 with Psalm 10:7
11. Feet swift to shed blood 3:15 with Isaiah 59:7
12. Destruction and misery in their ways 3:16,17 with Isaiah 59:7,8
13. No fear of God before their eyes 3:18 with Psalm 36:1
14. Abraham's faith counted for righteousness 4:3 with Genesis 15:6
15. Iniquities forgiven 4:7,8 with Psalm 32:1,2
16. Abraham the father of many nations 4:17 with Genesis 17:5
17. Abraham's seed to become many nations 4:18 with Genesis 15:5
18. Thou shalt not covet 7:7 with Exodus 20:17
19. For thy sake we are killed all the day 8:36 with Psalm 44:22
20. In Isaac shall thy seed be called 9:7 with Genesis 21:12
21. Sarah shall have a son 9:9 with Genesis 18:10
22. The elder shall serve the younger 9:12 with Genesis 25:23
23. Jacob have I loved 9:13 with Malachi 1:2,3
24. God's mercy upon us 9:15 with Exodus 33:19
25. Pharoah raised up for God's purpose 9:17 with Exodus 9:16
26. Shall clay speak to the potter 9:20 with Isaiah 45:9
27. Potter power over the clay 9:21 with Jeremiah 18:6
28. Gentiles called a people 9:25 with Hosea 2:23
29. Gentiles not called a people 9:26 with Hosea 1:10
30. Only a remnant of Israel saved 9:27,28 with Isaiah 10:22,23
31. God's provision of a seed 9:29 with Isaiah 1:9
32. Christ a stumblingstone 9:33 with Isaiah 28:16
33. Living by the law 10:5 with Leviticus 18:5
34. Who shall ascend into heaven 10:6,7 with Deuteronomy 30:12,13
35. God's word is nigh 10:8 with Deuteronomy 30:14
10
36. The believer not ashamed 10:11 with Isaiah 28:16
37. Call upon the name of the Lord to be saved 10:13 with Joel 2:32
38. The feet of preachers 10:15 with Isaiah 52:7
39. Who has believed our report? 10:16 with Isaiah 53:1
40. Hearing the gospel 10:18 with Psalm 19:4
41. Provoked to jealousy 10:19 with Deuteronomy 32:21
42. God found by those who seek Him 10:20 with Isaiah 65:1
43. God's outstretched hands 10:21 with Isaiah 65:2
44. Israel killing the prophets 11:3 with 1 Kings 19:10,14
45. God's reserved prophets 11:4 with 1 Kings 19:18
46. The spirit of slumber 11:8 with Isaiah 29:10
47. Israel’s conduct a snare 11:9,10 with Psalm 69:22,23
48. A Deliverer from Zion 11:26,27 with Isaiah 59:20,21
49. The mind of the Lord 11:34 with Isaiah 40:13
50. Given to the Lord 11:35 with Job 41:11
51. Vengeance belongs to the Lord 12:19 with Deuteronomy 32:35
52. Feeding our enemies 12:20 with Proverbs 25:21,22
53. Various commandments in 13:9 with Exodus 20:13-17 and Leviticus 19:18
54. Every knee shall bow 14:11 with Isaiah 45:23
55. Being reproached 15:3 with Psalm 69:9
56. God(s mercy among the Gentiles 15:9 with Psalm 18:49
57. Gentiles rejoicing with the Jews 15:10 with Deuteronomy 32:43
58. Gentiles praising the Lord 15:11 with Psalm 117:1
59. Christ, the Root of Jesse 15:12 with Isaiah 11:1,10
60. Christ preached to the heathen 15:21 with Isaiah 52:15
Out of this list, the following Old Testament books are quoted in Romans thusly:
Isaiah
17
Genesis
6 times
Jeremiah
1
Exodus
4
Hosea
2
Leviticus
2
Joel
1
Deuteronomy
6
Habakkuk
1
1 Kings
2
Malachi
1
Psalms
15
Proverbs
1
Outlines
1. Outline 1:
1. Revelation of God's Righteousness 1-8
2. Vindication of God's Righteousness 9-11
3. Application of God's Righteousness 12-16
2. Outline 2:
1. Sin 1:1-3:21
2. Salvation 3:22-5:21
3. Sanctification 6:1-8:39
4. Sovereignty 9:1-11:36
11
5. Service 12:1-16:27
3. Outline 3:
1. Doctrinal 1-8
2. Parenthetical- discussion on Israel 9-11
3. Practical 12-16
4. Outline 4- Partial
1. The need for justification 1-3
2. The way of Justification 3:24-28
3. The illustration of justification 4
1. God saved me from the penalty of sin- justification 1-5
2. God is saving me from the power of sin- sanctification 6-8
3. God will save me from the presence of sin- glorification 8
Outline of Romans by John Phillips, from Exploring Romans, pages 7,8:
Prologue 1:1-18
1. The Significance of the Gospel 1:1-4
2. The Servant of the Gospel 1:5-16
3. The Summary of the Gospel 1:17,18
I. The Principles of the Gospel 1:19-8:39
A. The Question of Sin 1:19-3:20
1. The Guilt of the Heathen 1:19-3:20
2. The Guilt of the Hypocrite 2:1-16
3. The Guilt of the Hebrew 2:17-3:8
4. The Guilt of all Humanity 3:9-20
B. The Question of Salvation 3:21-5:21
1. Salvation is Free 3:21-31
2. Salvation is by Faith 4:1-25
3. Salvation is Forever 5:1-21
C. The Question of Sanctification 6:1-8:39
1. The Way of Victory Explained 6:1-7:25
a. Deliverance from the domain of death 6:1-11
b. Deliverance from the domain of sin 6:12-23
c. Deliverance from the demands of the law 7:1-25
2. The Way of Victory Experienced 8:1-39
a. The new law 8:1-4
b. The new Lord 8:5-13
c. The new life 8:14-39
II. The Problems of the Gospel 9:1-11:36
A. God’s Past Dealings with Israel 9:1-33
1. Paul’s Anguish for the Jewish People 9:1-3
2. Paul’s Analysis of the Jewish Problem 9:4-33
B. God’s Present Dealings With Israel 10:1-21
12
1. Christ Revealed As Saviour 10:1-4
2. Christ Received As Saviour 10:5-15
3. Christ Rejected As Saviour 10:16-21
C. God’s Promised Dealings With Israel 11:1-36
1. The Fairness of God’s Dealings 11:1-10
2. The Farsightedness of God’s Dealings 11:11-29
3. The Faithfulness of God’s Dealings 11:30-36
III. The Practice of the Gospel 12:1-16:24
A. The Laws of the Christian Life 12:1-13:7
1. The Spiritual Life of the Christian 12:1-13
a. The Christian as a believer 12:1,2
b. The Christian as a brother 12:14-21
2. The Social Life of the Christian 12:14-21
3. The Secular Liffe of the Christian 13:1-7
B. The Laws of Christian Love 13:8-16:24
1. Love’s Moral Conscience 13:8-14
2. Love’s Merciful Conduct 14:1-15:7
3. Love’s Mature Convictions 15:8-13
4. Love’s Missionary Concern 15:14-33
5. Love’s Many Contacts 16:1-16
6. Love’s Mighty Conquests 16:17-20
7. Love’s Marvelous Companionships 16:21-24
Epilogue 16:21-24
Outline of Romans from the Recovery Version of the New Testament:
1. Introduction -- the gospel of God -- 1:1-17
1. Promised in the Holy Scriptures -- vv.1-2
2. Concerning Christ -- vv.3-4
3. Received by the called ones -- vv.5-7
4. Proclaimed with eagerness and partaken of by faith -- vv.8-15
5. The power of God's salvation -- vv.16-17
2. Condemnation -- 1:18--3:20
1. On mankind generally -- 1:18-32
2. On the self-righteous particularly -- 2:1-16
3. On the religious specifically -- 2:17--3:8
4. On all the world totally -- 3:9-20
3. Justification -- 3:21--5:11
1. The definition -- 3:21-31
2. The example -- 4:1-25
3. The result -- 5:1-11
4. Sanctification -- 5:12--8:13
1. The gift in Christ surpassing the heritage in Adam -- two men, two acts,
and two results with four reigning things -- 5:12-21
2. Identification with Christ -- 6:1-23
1. Identified -- vv.1-5
2. Knowing -- vv.6-10
13
5.
6.
7.
8.
3. Reckoning -- v.11
4. Presenting -- vv.12-23
3. Bondage in the flesh by the indwelling sin -- 7:1-25
1. Two husbands -- vv.1-6
2. Three laws -- vv.7-25
4. Freedom in the Spirit by the indwelling Christ -- 8:1-13
1. The law of the Spirit of life -- vv.1-6
2. The indwelling Christ -- vv.7-13
Glorification -- 8:14-39
1. Heirs of glory -- vv.14-27
2. Heirs conformed -- vv.28-30
3. Heirs inseparable from God's love -- vv.31-39
Selection -- 9:1--11:36
1. God's selection, our destiny -- 9:1--10:21
1. Of God who calls -- 9:1-13
2. Of God's mercy -- 9:14-18
3. Of God's sovereignty -- 9:19-29
4. Through the righteousness which is out of faith -- 9:30--10:3
5. Through Christ -- 10:4-21
1. Christ, the end of the law -- v.4
2. Christ, incarnated and resurrected -- vv.5-7
3. Christ, who is near -- v.8
4. Christ, believed in and called upon -- vv.9-13
5. Christ, proclaimed and heard -- vv.14-15
6. Christ, received or rejected -- vv.16-21
2. The economy in God's selection -- 11:1-32
1. A remnant reserved by grace -- vv.1-10
2. The Gentiles saved through Israel's stumbling -- vv.11-22
3. Israel restored through the Gentiles' receiving mercy -- vv.23-32
3. The praise for God's selection -- 11:33-36
Transformation -- 12:1--15:13
1. In practicing the Body life -- 12:1-21
1. By the presenting of our bodies -- v.1
2. By the renewing of the mind -- vv.2-3
3. By the exercising of the gifts -- vv.4-8
4. By the living of a life of the highest virtues -- vv.9-21
2. In being subject to authorities -- 13:1-7
3. In practicing love -- 13:8-10
4. In waging the warfare -- 13:11-14
5. In receiving the believers -- 14:1--15:13
1. According to God's receiving -- 14:1-9
2. In the light of the judgment seat -- 14:10-12
3. In the principle of love -- 14:13-15
4. For the kingdom life -- 14:16-23
5. According to Christ -- 15:1-13
Conclusion -- the consummation of the gospel -- 15:14--16:27
14
1.
2.
3.
4.
The Gentiles offered -- 15:14-24
The communication between the Gentile and Jewish saints -- 15:25-33
The concern between the churches -- 16:1-24
The concluding praise -- 16:25-27
Outline from H.T. Spence, The Canon of Scripture, page 170;
A. Introduction 1:1-7
B. Sin- The Need for Redemption 1:18-3:20
C. Justification- The Provision of Redemption 4-5
D. Sanctification- The Power of Redemption 6:1-8:39
E. Jew and Gentile- The Scope of Redemption 9:1-11:36
F. Service- The Fruit of Redemption 12:1-15:13
G. Conclusion and Greetings 15:14-16:27
Laws in Romans (from H.T. Spence, The Canon of Scripture, page 174):
1. Law of conscience- 2:14
2. Law of Moses- 2:20
3. Law of circumcision- 2:29
4. Law of works- 3:27
5. Law of faith- 3:27
6. Law of the flesh- 7:21-23
7. Law of sin- 7:25
8. Law of the inward man- 7:22
9. Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus- 8:2
10. Law of sin and death- 8:2b
11. Law of love- 13:8
12. Law of doubtful disputations- 14:13,14,17,20
Outlines from The Open Bible, page 1106:
1-8
Revelation of God’s Righteousness
9-11 Vindication of God’s Righteousness
12-16 Application of God’s Righteousness
1-3
4-5
6-8
9-11
12-16
Sin
Salvation
Sanctification
Sovereignty
Service
From The Unfolding Drama of Redemption by W. Graham Scroggie, 3:133
Romans 1:18-8:39
Romans 9-11
Romans 12:1-15:13
DOCTRINAL
Philosophy of Salvation
1. The Christian Message
1:18-5:11
DISPENSATIONAL
Philosophy of History
1. Election of Israel 9:129
15
PRACTICAL
Philosophy of Behavior
1. Paths of Duty 12,13
2. The Christian Life 6:18:30
2. Rejection of Israel
9:30-10:21
3. Summary 8:31-39
3. Conversion of Israel 11
16
2. Principles of Action
14:1-15:13
Booklist for Romans
The following remarks and reviews are from:
* Charles Spurgeon, Commenting and Commentaries
# D. Edmond Hiebert, An Introduction to the New Testament
$ Tools For Preaching and Teaching the Bible by Stewart Custer
% The Minister's Library by Cyril Barber
^ New Testament Commentary Survey by D. A. Carson
@ From a website of John MacArthur's campus ministry at UCLA
! The Master's Journal, from the Master's Seminary (marked with !)
+ From The Discerning Reader website (www.discerningreader.com)
< Website of Ligonier Ministries, http://www.ligonier.org
? Biblical Viewpoint, Bob Jones University, April 1988
/ Website of Still Waters River Books, http://www.puritandownloads.com/swrb
Those entries without marking are evaluated by the author, John Cereghin.
* Adam, Thomas. Paraphrase on Romans I to XI., 1774. A poor paraphrase; very
correct and evangelical, but thin as Adam's ale. We are disappointed, for the Private
Thoughts of the same author are highly esteemed.
? Alford, Henry, Romans in The Greek Testament, 1877, 161 pages. Concise
comments on the Greek text. He argues powerfully for the deity of Christ in 9:5; on 5:12
he attacks Pelagianism, defends the Augustinian doctrine of generically inherited
corruption.
? Archer, Gleason Leonard, Jr, The Epistle to the Romans. 1959. A brief outline of
Romans which gives the main argument. He holds to the Federal headship view of
5:12, strongly maintains the deity of Christ in 9:5.
! Anderson, Norman. Freedom under Law, 1988. A biblical scholar who is also a
professor emeritus of legal studies shows how law relates to true freedom. Various
types of freedoms flourish under protection by laws. Later, the author examines law in
the spiritual life according to Scripture. He argues in Matthew 5:17-20 for fulfillment of
the law in the appropriate sense God has designed for it to have (p. 121). God purposed
that Mosaic rules and regulations on ceremonial cleanness have their place in Old
Testament times, but also look forward to moral cleanness such as was realized in
Jesus's spiritual life and teaching and spiritual power. The Mosaic law was not designed
to be a way to merit salvation by obeying, but revealed ways God willed for saved
people to live for their well-being (p. 155). The law could speak of the need for life, but
could not impart the life God gives in grace through Christ in the gospel. In the gospelway God supplies power to obey God's will as portrayed in the moral principles of the
law, etc.
* Anderson, Robert. Exposition of Romans., 1837. After the manner of Charles Bridges.
Full of holy unction and devout meditation.
17
? Barmby, J and Radford Thomson, Romans in volume 18 of The Pulpit Commentary,
1950, 498 pages. Homiletical material of unequal value by six different preachers.
Parts are very helpful; some verses are omitted completely. It supports the deity of
Christ in 9:5.
? Barrett, Charles Kingsley, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1957, 302
pages. Liberal, often precise in thought. On 5:12 he seems to express a Pelagian view
of sin; he removes the deity of Christ in 9:5, adding that Paul’s calling Christ God is
unlikely, but not “impossible” (179).
^ Bartlett, David Lyon, Romans, Westminster Bible Companion, 1995. He focuses on
several of Paul’s grand themes (the oneness of God, God’s righteousness, Paul’s use
of the Hebrew scriptures, and the emergence of the new age in Jesus Christ) and
manages to read the entire epistle in these terms.
% Barth, Karl, The Epistle to the Romans, 1933, 568 pages. This landmark book first
appeared in German after World War I. In it Barth showed the failure of liberalism and
used the epistle as a platform from which to launch his own "new orthodoxy". Not a
good exposition, but an epochal work of historical significance in the study of theology.
? On 5:12, he says “Adam has no existence on the plane of history”.
^ Barton, Bruce B., Romans, Life Application Bible Commentary, 1992. In short
compass he develops the themes of Romans along traditionally Reformed lines.
# Beet, Joseph Agar, A Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, 1902, 406
pages. An interpretation by a Wesleyan. Contains many helpful insights, but manifests
some doctrinal weakness in handling the deity of Christ. The doctrinal summaries offer
a distinctive feature.
# Black, Matthew, Romans. New Century Bible, 1973. Based on the Revised Standard
Version. A concise scholarly treatment. Especially valuable for its frequent reference to
sources for further study.
! Boice, James M.. Romans, an Expositional Commentary. Volume I, Justification by
Faith, Romans 1-4, 1991. This Philadelphia preacher expounds the text, highlighting
doctrinal points and their application to human life. This will be another multi-volume
commentary. It is full of teaching that will build up the believer.
* Brown, John. Exposition of Romans, 1766. By a Calvinist of the old school. Heavy,
perhaps; but precious.
/ 616 pages. John Brown of Wamphray's commentary on Romans has been
called, "perhaps the best exposition of the Epistle yet to be found" (J.W.C., cited in the
Johnston's Treasury of the Scottish Covenant, p. 341). At the very least it should be
considered a classic Scottish Covenanter's commentary.
John Brown of Wamphray was one of Samuel Rutherford's favorite students. He
was ejected in 1662, imprisoned and cruelly treated until he suffered exile to the
18
Netherlands -- all for steadfastly maintaining the principles of the Covenanted
Reformation. In fact, A.N. in the preface to this volume notes that, among other things,
"the particular grounds and causes why he was thus inhumanly and barbarously
treated, was his strict attachment to, and maintaining the binding force and perpetual
obligations of the nation's solemn vows and covenants; his refusing acceptation of the
then sinful Indulgences; ... his public and zealous testifying against licentious
tolerations," etc.
While in exile he wrote thirteen books. Johnston notes that Brown of Wamphray
"has been regarded the most important theologian of the second period of Scottish
Presbyterianism" (Treasury of the Scottish Covenant, p. 339). This commentary on
Romans gives us a good indication as to why Brown is so highly regarded among
Calvinists, historians and numerous commentators.
* Brown, John, Analytical Expositions of Romans, 1857. Brown's work must be placed
among of the first-class. He is a great expositor.
? Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Romans. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries,
1963, 288 pages. Perceptive comments from a Reformed viewpoint, manifesting a wide
knowledge of literature and the theological writers. Occasionally too brief (3:21), often
marvelously full (3:25). He holds that Paul taught the deity of Christ in 9:5; but urges
moderate feelings toward those who disagree.
? Brunner, Emil, The Letter to the Romans, A Commentary, 1959, 168 pages. NeoOrthodox. He removes the deity of Christ from 9:5 and rejects Augustine’s
interpretation of 5:12, coming close to a Pelagian view of sin..
^ Byrne, Brendan, Reckoning With Romans: A Contemporary Reading of Paul’s
Gospel, 1986. Surprisingly good. One raises eyebrows here and there, but many old
truths are set out in fresh ways. The 40 theses at the end of the book are worth
pondering. This book is of greater value than his commentary.
^ Byrne, Brendan, Romans, 1996. A Sacra Pagina contribution whose approach is
literary-rhetorical and who views the epistle as a call to inclusivism mediated through
rhetorical persuasion, is suitably faddish but too often misses the point. A Catholic
commentary.
# Calvin, John, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the
Thessalonians. Calvin's Commentaries. On Romans the great Reformation expositor
was at his best; still of value in spite of its age.
* Challis, James. Translation of Romans with Notes, 1871. The translation is made in
the current language of the day. The notes are mainly critical.
* Chalmers, T. Lectures on Romans, 1827. Our preferences as to expositions lie in
another direction; but we cannot be insensible to the grandeur and childlike simplicity
which were combined in Chalmers.
19
? Coltman, William G., An Exposition of Romans, 1950, 268 pages. A devotional and
practical commentary. He defends the deity of Christ in 9:5 and teaches the restoration
of national Israel in chapter 11.
Constable, Thomas, Notes on Romans, 2006, 177 pages. Self-published commentary
on the internet. Generally useful, but uses many different English versions. As always,
we would prefer that commentators stick to one main “reference” commentary and base
his remarks on that. Many quotes are offered from other authors which adds to the
value of the work.
^ Cottrell, Jack, Romans, 1996-1998, 2 volumes. He is more of a theologian than an
exegete and sometimes that shows. The strand of Arminian tradition to which Cottrell
belongs is more comfortable with the concept of “original grace” than “original sin”. In
the Campbellite tradition, water baptism is necessary for salvation.
@ Cranfield C.E.B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans,
2 volumes. Requiring a strong Greek knowledge, it is the best technical commentary on
Romans. Cranfield is liberal and offers some neo-orthodox views, but it does not hinder
this commentary very much.
^ Occasionally Cranfield seems more influenced by Barth than by Paul, but for
thoughtful exegesis of the Greek text, with a careful weighing of alternative positions,
there is nothing quite like it. An abbreviated (320 pages) edition is also available that
makes fewer demands on the reader.
< Anyone doing serious in-depth study of the book of Romans will need to
consult Cranfield's technical two-volume commentary. This is one of the most thorough
commentaries on this book, and because it deals with every aspect of the Greek text, it
does require a working knowledge of the original language. Readers should also be
aware that Cranfield at times takes a somewhat Barthian approach to Romans, so the
commentary should be used with care. For those who do not require the detailed
exegetical information an abridged version is also available.
+ Cranfield, C.E.B., Romans: A Shorter Commentary, 388 pages. A nontechnical
abridgment of Cranfield's highly acclaimed two-volume commentary on Romans in the
International Critical Commentary series. Following a brief introduction, Cranfield
provides section-by-section and verse-by-verse commentary on Romans, based on his
own translation. While no substitute for the original 2-volume work, this short
abridgement gives us the meat of Cranfield's masterful work.
? Denney, James, St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. The Expositor's Greek Testament.
Volume 11. 1907, 170 pages Greek Text. He denies the deity of Christ in 9:5 and
mentions that the connection between sin and death was common in Jewish writings
“resting apparently on a literal interpretation of Genesis 3”.
# Dodd, C. H., The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. The Moffatt New Testament
Commentaries, 1932, 281 pages. Prints the Moffatt translation. The work of an able
20
Liberal British theologian, using a psychological approach to Paul and his teaching.
Dodd does not hesitate to disagree with Paul's views on occasion.
^ Has been declared as a classic, although on many passages it is hard to see
why. Perhaps it is for no other reason than that he writes well. Sadly, however, he
consistently flattens future perspectives into present perspectives and pushes his own
theories at the reader: he is uncomfortable unless he can have a domesticated cross.
? A very influential Neo-Orthodox commentary. He says frankly “Sometimes I
think Paul is wrong and I have ventured to say so (xxxv).” On 5:12 he says “Adam is a
myth (though for Paul he may have seemed real) (79).” He removes the deity of Christ
from 9:5.
! Dunn, James D.G., Romans. 2 vols.; Word Biblical Commentary, 1988. Dunn,
professor of divinity, University of Durham, Scotland, has resorted to critical theories
more that some conservatives would like, but he certainly reflects a massive amount of
study in the work. He has much on viewpoints and their supports, word meanings,
grammar, and bibliography on each pericope. His interaction with other scholarship
makes this one of the best on Romans in that regard.
^ More up-to-date bibliographically and is certainly worthy of diligent study.
Nevertheless, one of its controlling foci- the thesis that Paul and his readers are
wrestling over the signs of membership in the people of God- is overdone, and is in
general too indebted to E. P. Sanders.
^ Edwards, James, Romans, New International Bible Commentary, 1995. Useful to
laypeople.
* Edwards, Timothy. Paraphrase, with Annotations, on Romans and Galatians, 1752.
Watt calls this a judiciously compiled work from the best comments. We judge it to be
as poor as poverty itself.
? Erdman, Charles Rosenbury. The Epistle to the Romans, 1925, 160 pages. A
devotional and practical commentary. He maintains the deity of Christ in 9:5; he
teaches election in 8:30, but also teaches free will (p. 94).
* Ewbank, W.W. Commentary, with Translation and Notes, 1850. A sound evangelical
comment, very good and gracious. In condensed thought this work is not rich; it is
adapted for general reading.
^ Fitzmyer, Joseph A., Romans, Anchor Bible, 1993. A Catholic contribution whose
exegesis is often magisterial. In many of the crucial passages, this work sounds far
more Reformed than Catholic. A weakness of the work is that it does not interact
seriously with much of the “new perspective”: Fitzmyer simply ignores it. Some of his
short excursuses are worth the price of the volume.
* Forbes, John, Analytical Commentary, tracing the Train of Thought by the Aid of
Parallelism, with Notes,&c, 1868. We think Dr. Forbes carries the idea of parallelism
farther than it should go. It can only be applied strictly to poetical books, which Romans
21
is not. He tries to bring out the other side of the truths taught in Hodge, Edwards, and
Calvin; but we confess our preference of those authors to himself. The work will greatly
edify those whom it does not confuse.
* Fry, John, Lectures, 1816. Having no theory to serve in this instance, Fry writes to
edification.
^ Gamble, Harry, Jr., The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans. He ably defends
the unity of the epistle.
? Gifford, E. H., The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, 1886, 238 pages. A very
thorough exposition. He defends the deity of Christ in 9:5. He also demonstrates that
this is the unanimous interpretation of the Ante-Nicene Fathers (178).
Greene, Oliver, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, 1962, 334 pages. A
conservative commentary of some value, not technical but not very devotional. Greene
has a tendency to rely too much on the Scofield notes, “Greek scholars” (which Greene
was unable to critique) and Albert Barnes, whom he quotes almost word-for-word in
some places without giving Barnes credit. It is also dangerous for a man who knows no
Greek to rely on the opinions of Greek scholars, for without a working knowledge of
Greek, how will he be able to evaluate them and determine if they are right or wrong?
Greene should have left the Greek alone if he couldn’t handle it and stuck to the
English.
? Godet, F. L., Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1883, 544 pages. An
exhaustive and technical commentary. He surveys and refutes a great number of
theological writers. He defends the deity of Christ thoroughly in 9:5, holds that death in
5:12 refers to physical death.
^ He is not at his best on Romans but is worth skimming.
* Godwin, John H., New Translation, with Notes, 1873. Such a book as students need
while studying the Greek text in college.
? Gore, Charles. St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, 1899, 2 volumes. A commentary
with a number of liberal views. On 5:12 he denies imputed guilt and man’s total
depravity, adding that Paul assumed Genesis 3 was true. He does defend the deity of
Christ in 9:5.
^ Grayson, Kenneth, Romans, 1997. The style is frequently abrasive and his positions
too often eccentric.
Haldane, Robert, Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, 1835-1839. This
commentary is marred by constant interruptions in opposing various teachings by
Macknight, Tholuck and Moses Stuart. The commentary would read much smoother
without these constant digressions. I am interested in what Haldane thinks. I don't need
him constantly telling me about what Macknight, Tholuck and Stuart thinks. This is a
22
constant distraction from an otherwise good commentary. Peter Ruckman writes in a
similar manner.
# Hamilton, Floyd E., The Epistle to the Romans., An Exegetical and Devotional
Commentary, 1958, 235 pages. A thorough and strongly conservative exposition in the
Reformed tradition. Aims at combining "grammatico-historical" exegesis with doctrinal
and devotional methods.
? States his belief in the verbal inspiration of the autographs. He holds to the
Federal headship of Adam in 5:12, the deity of Christ in 9:5.
^ Harrison, E. F., Romans, in Expositor’s Bible Commentary, volume 10. He is
responsible in his comments but provides little interaction and not much spark.
% Harrison, Norman Baldwin. His Salvation, 1926. An expository gem. Warmly
devotional, and ideal for use with laymen's groups.
* Hinton, J. Howard. Exposition, 1863. Not believing in the constant parallelism of the
Epistles, we care very little for this treatise, much as we esteem the author.
# Hodge, Charles, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1888, 462 pages. A
weighty and learned verse-by-verse analysis of the text with frequent reference to the
Greek. Doctrinal summaries and remarks appear at the end of each major section.
^ He has been eclipsed by Murray, who has been eclipsed by Moo.
< Although written well over one hundred years ago, Charles Hodge's
commentary on Romans should still be required for those doing serious study of the
text. Hodge was a systematic theologian, but contrary to what many today think, this
was no hindrance to doing good exegetical work. This commentary is rich in exegetical
and theological insight.
? Although not easy reading, it is immensely helpful. He vigorously defends the
deity of Christ in 9:5. In an unusually lengthy treatment of 5:12 (142-155, 178-190) he
advocates the Federal Headship view.
% Hort, Fenton John Anthony. Prolegomena of St. Paul's Epistles to the Romans and
the Ephesians, 1895. Brief and to the point. Focuses on the founding of the church of
Rome and the purpose of the epistles. Includes a helpful analysis of Paul's letters.
? Hoyt, Herman A., The First Christian Theology: Studies in Romans, 1977, 187 pages.
A brief conservative commentary. Each chapter has study questions. He defends
Pauline authorship (11); claims that Paul cited 61 Old Testament passages in Romans
(30); identifies three acts of God in saving men: justification, sanctification, preservation
(60); warns against the danger of continuing in sin (75); teaches God’s sovereign
election (102); stresses the importance of submission to God’s will (133); concludes
with a bibliography on the life of Paul as well as on commentaries on Romans (183187).
23
! Hughes, R. Kent. Righteousness from Heaven, 1991. 339 pages. This very readable
exposition explains Romans, section-by-section, and frequently introduces items from
broader reading to stimulate the user. Hughes is diligent in researching and
communicating winsomely and pointedly what the text says, and then realistically
applying it to daily life. His studies are broad and will be more useful for lay people
desiring a quick and interesting escort through Romans.
? Hunter, Archibald Macbride. The Epistle to the Romans, 1955, 134 pages. Brief liberal
commentary. He removes the deity of Christ in 9:5; on 5:12 he says “Paul of course
took the Genesis story as literal history.” Anyone who does so now Hunter calls
“Fundamentalist” (59). To him the Genesis story is a “true myth” (60). Sometimes he
manifests real insight into Paul’s thought (on 7:14-25).
% Ironside, Henry Allan. Lectures on the Epistle to the Romans, 1951. A clear, direct
exposition. Recommended to new Christians and lay discussion groups.
Ironside is always worth consulting with a good deal of practical
applications.
# Johnson, Alan F., The Freedom Letter, 1974. Treats chapters 1-11 as the doctrinal
foundation for Christianity, with chapters 12-15 setting forth the Christian life. The work
of a competent evangelical scholar accepting a moderate premillennial position.
^ Johnson, Luke Timothy, Romans, 1997. His “literary and theological” commentary is
sometimes helpful in untangling the flow of thought, but is too brief for close exegesisand in any case it is not one of his best efforts.
^ Käsemann, E., Romans, 1978. Käsemann is brilliant and infuriating, alternating
theologically between insightful and tradition-bound (he writes as a deeply committed
modern Lutheran). No one who reads him can remain neutral about anything he says.
# Kelly, William, Notes on the Epistle Of Paul the Apostle to the Romans With A New
Translation, 1873, 374 pages. Reflects the evangelical, premillennial views of this
voluminous Plymouth Brethren scholar of the past century.
Kelly, as well as Darby, would be more useful if they based their comments on a
more verse-by-verse format instead of commenting on the paragraphs in the text. It can
be difficult to locate the required material in the commentary text.
? Kirk, Kenneth Escott, The Epistle to the Romans, The Clarendon Bible, 1937, 245
pages. Brief liberal notes but with a thorough introduction (135 pages). He is helpful on
“the Main Ideas of the Epistle”. He removes the deity of Christ from 9:5, calls the
statement in 5:12 a “rabbinic” argument (195).
* Knight, Robert, Commentary, 1854. Not at all to our mind. The author often seems to
us rather to becloud the text than to explain it.
24
? Knox, John, and Cragg, Gerald R., The Epistle to the Romans, The Interpreter's Bible,
1954, 315 pages. The usual liberal exposition. On 5:12 it manifests a Pelagian view of
sin (463). They remove the deity of Christ from 9:5, but they admit there are other
interpretations.
# Prints the King James and Revised Standard versions at the top of the page.
! Kreloff, Stephen, God’s Plan for Israel: A Study of Romans 9 –11, 1995. 112 pages.
The exposition contained in this book originally appeared as articles in Israel My Glory
magazine from October 1987 through January 1990. The author and publisher have
done the Christian public a great service in making these articles available in this book.
The author has endeavored to present an exposition of Paul’s teaching in
Romans 9-11, showing particularly the righteousness of God in His dealings with the
Jewish people (11). To fulfill this purpose, Kreloff gives a simple, but not simplistic,
verse-by-verse explanation of this crucial section of Romans. The basic premise of the
work is that God is going to fulfill the salvation promises made to Israel through spiritual
Jews, those of faith in God from the physical line of Abraham. The present unbelief of
Israel in Jesus as Messiah does not negate a future fulfillment of God’s past promise to
Israel. The existence of a remnant of believing Jews in every generation throughout the
church age indicates that God has not permanently cast away His people.
Kreloff traces this basic premise through Romans 9 –11. He especially deals with
the OT passages Paul cites and explains how the apostle uses them in his argument. In
his exposition, Kreloff states only his own interpretive positions, sometimes with added
support. He never presents another interpretive viewpoint and interaction with it. For
example, Kreloff states that Paul’s use of Hosea in Romans 9:25-26 is a “promise of
mercy reserved only for a remnant within the nation of Israel” (44-5). Because some
dispensationalists argue that Paul is applying the Hosea passage to Gentile believers
here, a stronger explanation for Kreloff’s preferred view would be helpful. Further, the
author makes some insightful comments concerning the evangelization of Jews during
the present age. He writes, “During the church age God’s primary method for bringing
Jewish people to Christ is through godly Gentile Christians…While most Jewish people
look on Hebrew Christians with suspicion, they are intrigued by the testimonies of
Gentiles who have come to embrace a Jewish Messiah revealed in a Jewish book” (8283). An extended discussion of this point and its present implications would be very
beneficial.
For the expositor working his way through Romans 9–11, God’s Plan for Israel
provides a well-organized discussion that, when used in conjunction with a major
exegetical commentary, will help the preacher present Paul’s teaching clearly and
accurately.
# Lange, John Peter, and Fay, F. R., The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. Commentary
on the Holy Scriptures, 455 pages. The material on Romans in this massive volume
(over 400 double column pages) falls into three parts: exegetical and critical; doctrinal
and ethical; homiletical and practical. The additions by Schaff and Riddle add to its
fullness and value. Still offers much help to those willing to dig in its closely printed
pages.
25
? Conservative. He teaches original sin and guilt on 5:12, the deity of Christ in
9:5, holding that the words are a synagogue liturgy applied to Christ.
? Lenski, R. C. H., The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, 1938, 933
pages. Amillennial, conservative, militantly Lutheran. He uses the Greek extensively,
defends the deity of Christ in 9:5; on 5:12 he comments on the question “What if Eve
had sinned and Adam had not”: “…every well-trained ass keeps off the hypothetical ice
to avoid breaking a leg!”.
? Liddon, H. P., Explanatory Analysis of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, 1897, 317
pages. Thorough, technical commentary in outline form, often striking in insight,
especially in its analysis of logic and structure. He upholds the deity of Christ in 9:5
vigorously..
$ Lloyd-Jones, D. Martyn, Romans (1970-1974), 1729 pages. Wordy messages on
Romans 3:20-5:21 with much good exposition and many digressions. He stresses the
need for conviction of sin (3:21); gives clear word studies (3:25,26); dares (though a
reformed expositor) to disagree with John Calvin on 5:12; plainly rejects Karl Barth's
teaching on 8:3,4.
^ Probably not the model most preachers should imitate, but the set is easy to
read and Lloyd-Jones sometimes offers material one is hard-pressed to find elsewherein addition to the wealth of practical application of Scripture.
% Loane, Marcus Lawrence, The Hope of Glory, 1968. Provides a rare combination of
accurate exegesis, capable biblical exposition and conservative scholarship.
% Luther, Martin. Lectures on Romans, 1961, 444 pages. This indispensable work
contains lectures first delivered to his students in 1515-16. Shows the process through
which Luther went as he grappled with the problems of Catholic dogma versus
justification by faith.
? He cites Augustine and Chrysostom after the manner of Scholastic
commentators.
* Martyr, Peter. A most learned and fruitful Commentary on Romans. Folio, 1568. Being
in black letter and very long, few will ever read it; but it contains much that will repay the
laborious bookworm.
@ MacArthur, John, Romans, MacArthur's New Testament Commentary. MacArthur
summarizes his 121 sermon series on the book of Romans which he gave in 1981. Like
his other commentaries, it is expository and provides technical analysis when
appropriate to substantiate his point. 2 volumes.
^ Closer to exposition than to commentary.
% McGee, John Vernon. Reasoning Through Romans. Plain, practical studies by a
famous pastor and Bible teacher.
26
? Mills, Sanford C., A Hebrew Christian Looks At Romans, 1971, 507 pages. An
exposition by a converted Orthodox Jew. He stresses the importance of the local
church (19) and the eternal sonship of Christ (23); refers to the Jewish law of
circumcising an infant who had died (62); attacks New Evangelicalism (63) and
Arminianism (289, 218, 403); argues that Scripture contradicts Jewish thought (110);
teaches believer’s baptism (120, 173f); defends the pretribulation rapture (151); makes
the virgin birth the foundation for the deity of Christ (239-240); stresses predestination
and the sovereignty of God (276,284,302,306,318,321,326, etc); fervently urges the
deity of Christ (296); objects to some of Scofield’s interpretations (384-385); concludes
with a brief biography (493-494).
@ Moo, Douglas, Romans 1-8, Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary. 1991, 591 pages.
Moo's commentary is very precise in its analysis, very thorough in all his arguments;
many are anxiously awaiting the second half of this masterpiece.
! Moo thoroughly analyzes each passage, interacting with various viewpoints and
their supports and usually sifting out clearly his own preferences. His 21-page
bibliography and citations are copious. His major sources are twelve in number: Barrett,
Calvin, Cranfield, Dunn, Godet, Ksemann, Kuss, Michel, Murray, Nygren, Sanday and
Headlam, and Wilckens. He is so cautious that at times it is difficult to determine his
viewpoint. Whether agreeing with Moo or not, one will find reward in a careful reading of
his discussions of controversial issues. In commenting on the Greek and discussing
theological ramifications, the work must rank as one of the top evangelical treatments,
along with Cranfield and Murray.
^ Probably the best Romans commentary now available in English. It’s
introduction is thin but Moo exhibits extraordinary good sense in his exegesis. No less
important, his is the first commentary to cull what is useful from the “new perspective”
on Paul while nevertheless criticizing many of the perspective’s exegetical and
theological stances.
< Moo, Douglas, The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary on the
New Testament, 1996. Douglas Moo's commentary on Romans is judged by many to
be the best all around evangelical commentary on this epistle. It is thorough, but it is not
overly technical. Moo presents his exegetical arguments carefully and cogently. This
reader is especially impressed by his treatment of Romans 11. In terms of intermediateadvanced level commentaries, this one is the best place to begin.
+ Moo, Douglas, , Encountering the Book of Romans, 230 pages. Moo begins his study
with a clear, concise, and helpful survey of the two broad contemporary options for
understanding Romans: the "Reformation approach" and the "new perspective approach,"
pointing out that how one approaches the book inevitably affects how one interprets it. He
encourages students to decide which approach best fits with the actual teaching of the
letter, and as a help in this process, often indicates how the two opposing views would
interpret key texts. Moo goes on to address other introductory matters that are necessary
for understanding Romans-the first-century context, the situation in Paul's life as well as
the situation in the lives of his readers. After laying the groundwork for reading Romans,
Moo leads readers through the weighty argument of this book, highlighting key themes
27
and clarifying difficult passages. Throughout, he also helps students to see the continuing
relevance of Romans. As with other volumes in the Encountering series, Encountering
the Book of Romans is designed for classroom use and includes a number of helpful
features, including a bibliography, key terms, chapter objectives, chapter outlines,
sidebars, and illustrations. An excellent supplement to Moo's outstanding commentary on
this massive book. A must have resource for classes working through Romans.
! Morris, Leon, The Epistle to the Romans, 1988. xii + 578 pp. Morris in his retirement
has completed one of the best exegetical works of his career. This commentary is quite
thorough in most places and will undoubtedly be one of the most consulted treatments
of Paul's epistle, useful to professors, pastors, and other serious students. Morris
demonstrates a mature and profound grasp of issues that need to be resolved and a
wide awareness of literature helpful in viewing Romans from various angles, and then
makes many perceptively judicious comments. He writes from the perspective of
Reformed theology. The work includes endorsements by Philip E. Hughes and Donald
Guthrie on its dust jacket. It uses the New International Version but sometimes
furnishes the writer's own renderings, and has a plethora of long and short footnotes
dealing with Greek words, grammar, and other types of issues. Additional excursus on
the righteousness of God, truth, the law in Romans, justification, judgment, and sin
appear in the body of the commentary. Morris is an amillennialist. Most of his
discussions are quite good or at least adequate. All in all, this commentary is worthy of
a place on the shelf alongside works by C. E. B. Cranfield, William Hendriksen, and
John Murray.
^ A workmanlike commentary in traditional mold. Its strength is the seriousness
with which it takes the text; its weakness is its failure to grapple with the tenor of Pauline
studies since E. P. Sanders.
? Moule, H. C. G., Romans, Cambridge Bible Study Series, 1879, 220 pages. Brief
notes by a Calvinistic Anglican, richly devotional, careful and reverent. His introduction
includes parallels between Romans and Galatians (29-30) and Old Testament
quotations (31).
? Moule, Handley Carr Glynn, Romans in The Expositor’s Bible, 1896, 453 pages.
Probably the finest, most helpful exposition of Romans in print. He is intensely
devotional but writes with real scholarship and insight. His sympathy with the thought
and phraseology of Paul is remarkable.
^ Mounce, Robert H., Romans, New American Commentary, 1995. Sensible and
workmanlike, but not exciting.
^ Murray, John, The Epistle to the Romans, New International Commentary, 1960. He
will guide you stolidly with the heavy tread of the proverbial village policeman (though
with more theology; and not especially the useful appendices and notes).
+ 760 pages. Careful scholarship and spiritual insight characterize this enduring
commentary on Romans, generally considered to be Paul's most profound letter. In The
Epistle to the Romans John Murray offers an exposition of Romans deeply penetrating
in its elucidation of the text yet accessible to scholars, pastors, and students alike. In his
introduction to the commentary proper, Murray discusses the authorship, occasion,
purpose, and contents of Romans and provides important background information on
the church at Rome. Murray then provides a verse-by-verse exposition of the text that
takes into account key problems that have emerged in the older and newer literature. In
ten appendices that close the volume Murray gives special attention to themes and
scholarly debates that are essential for a full-orbed understanding of Romans. This
combined edition of Murray's original two-volume work, formerly published as part of the
New International Commentary on the New Testament series, will hold continued value
as a scholarly resource in the study of Romans for years to come. A standard
commentary from the leading Reformed theologian of the 20th century.
# Presents a post-millennial view of chapters 9-11.
< Originally part of the NICNT series, until it was replaced by Moo's work in 1996,
John Murray's commentary on Romans remains a valuable work well worth consulting.
Like Hodge, Murray was a systematic theologian, and like Hodge, this did not in any
way hinder his exegetical work.
Newell, William R., Romans Verse by Verse, 1948. Newell has an annoying habit of
correcting the King James Bible far too much, basing his remarks on uncertain modern
critical Greek scholarship. His changing of the traditional text adds nothing to this work.
Newell is also weak in chapters 6 and 7 and the doctrines relating to sanctification that
Paul lays out. I do think this work is better than his companion work on Hebrews.
? Practical and devotional, although at times his explanations lack clarity. He
assumes that 9:5 refers to the deity of Christ, cites Alford for proof.
% Newman, Barclay and Eugene Nida, A Translator's Handbook on Paul's Letter to the
Romans, 1973. The syntax of this volume is of particular importance and the authors
attempt to resolve some of the problems inherent in the text. As will all volumes in this
series, the thrust is to meet the need of translators. Pastors and seminarians may also
find these works helpful.
Norris, J. Frank. Lectures on Romans, 228 pages. A series of sermon outlines and
thoughts used as a textbook in Norris' seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. Not very deep or
useful.
# Nygren, Anders, Commentary on Romans, 1949, 457 pages. A fresh, provocative
treatment by a Lutheran scholar in the Lundensian school of theology, and reflecting
that viewpoint.
^ Everyone who can do so should grasp his general introductory remarks on
pages 16-26. Unfortunately, however, the book is inadequate as a verse-by-verse
commentary.
? Neo-Orthodox presuppositions, but often manifesting brilliant insight into Paul’s
thought. He makes Scripture conform to his philosophical understanding of the two
Aeons.
29
* Olshausen, Hermann., Commentary on Romans, 1850. Nobody seems very
enthusiastic as to Olshausen, but some have borrowed from his pages more than they
have confessed. Personally we do not care for him, but many prize and all respect him.
^ He sometimes offers independent interpretations that are worth pondering.
^ O’Neill, J. C., Romans. He is so eccentric in his source theories, arguing that Paul did
not write about one-third of Romans, that this is unlikely to be the first commentary to
which students and preachers turn.
? Paisley, Ian R. K., An Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, 1968, 191 pages. A
fervent exposition in the form of alliterative outlines. They were prepared while Paisley
was in prison for conscience sake. He identifies the baptism of 6:3-5 as spirit baptism
(87); holds that the old nature is not sent to a hospital to be cured but to the cross to be
crucified (94); argues that covetousness violates all ten commandments (112);
emphasizes sovereign election (141).
* Parr, Elnathan, A Short View of the Epistle to the Romans, 1651. The style is faulty
but the matter is rich and full of suggestions. We regret that the work is not complete,
and is seldom to be met with except in fragments.
# Phillips, John, Exploring Romans, The Gospel According to Paul, 1969. An extensive,
popular exposition by a contemporary Bible teacher, rich in illustrations and quotations.
The presentation is organized around a detailed alliterative outline; various word studies
help to bring out the meaning of the text. The work of a gifted teacher.
Good, practical, useful, as, as his commentaries are, based on the King James
Bible. His outlines are also very good and are alone worth the price of the book.
^ Piper, John, The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans
9:1-23. This book is regrettably out of print. This is the best exegetical and theological
discussion of Romans 9.
I have never really been impressed with Piper or his Calvinism or his
contemporary Christianity and I still haven’t figured out what all the fuss is about his
ministry.
* Plumer, William, Commentary with Introduction on the Life, Times, Writings, and
Character of Paul. Plumer is a laborious compiler, and to most men his works will be of
more use than those of a more learned writer.
* Pridham, Arthur, Notes, 1862. Sound and gracious, but somewhat dull.
* Purdue, E., Commentary on Romans, 1855. Not important.
? Richardson, John R., and J. Knox Chamblin, The Epistle to the Romans, Proclaiming
the New Testament, 1963, 166 pages. Homiletical comments on selected portions of
Romans. In some ways useful, but on the whole, rather shallow. Ignores 9:5.
30
* Robinson, T. Suggestive Commentary on Romans. Van Doren Series of
Commentaries, 1871. A good book in a good style. Worth any amount to preachers.
I think very highly of the format of this and similar commentaries. This is not a
traditional commentary but Robinson gives numerous “seed thoughts” that the reader is
expected to develop into complete thoughts. Useful critical material is in the footnotes.
This is one of my favorite commentaries on Romans.
Ruckman, Peter, The Bible Believer’s Commentary on Romans, 2003, 610 pages.
Generally orthodox with some good practical material but Ruckman is known for several
peculiar and unusual interpretations and a very confrontational attitude with modern
commentators and those who are not supporters of the King James Bible or with his
interpretations. This commentary does not include nearly as many of Ruckman’s usual
tirades against other commentaries or against those who do not hold to the level of
support of the King James Version that he would find sufficient, which is refreshing,
much like his commentary on Revelation. This is probably because this book reads like
sermon transcripts instead of a commentary written from scratch. Strongly
dispensational, premillennial and anti-Calvinistic.
# Sanday, William, and Headlam, Arthur C., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
the Epistle to the Romans. The International Critical Commentary, 1895, 562 pages. A
very thorough commentary on the Greek text from a strongly Arminian view. In an
exhaustive discussion of 9:5 they defend the deity of Christ (232-238). On 5:12 they
hold that all men sin because they inherited tendencies from Adam (132); the Fall
transmitted the liability to sin (132). Probably the most helpful commentary on the
Greek.
^ Schlatter, Adolf, Romans, 1995, translated from German. A cause for great
thankfulness that this has been translated into English. Obviously it is dated (Schlatter
died in 1938), but it is still good at tracing the epistle’s line of argument.
+ Schreiner, Thomas, Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentary of the New Testament,
944 pages. In the latest addition to BECNT, Schreiner presents a fresh analysis of the
substantive Book of Romans. It features many distinctives.
* Sclater, W., A Key to the Key of Scripture; or an Exposition, with Notes, upon the
Romans, 1639. An antique but precious book.
# Shedd, William G. T., A Critical and Doctrinal Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul
to the Romans, 1879. Greek text. An exhaustive exegetical treatment by a conservative
and Calvinistic teacher of the past century. Intended for the theological student and
clergyman.
Sightler, Harold, Romans, 1983, 379 pages. Fundamentalist, dispensational and premillennial but somewhat sparse on the deeper, doctrinal discussions and technical
matters. Popular, with some good practical material.
31
+ Sproul, R.C., The Gospel of God: Romans, 256 pages. An outstanding, popular
exposition focusing on the essential teaching of this grand epistle. As always, Sproul is
crystal clear presenting Biblical Christianity through this masterful letter. Highly
recommended.
Stam, Cornelius R., Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, 1984, 331
pages. Hyper-dispensational commentrary but still some good material of discretion is
used.
? Steele, David N., and Curtis C. Thomas, Romans: An Interpretive Outline, 1963, 214
pages. Brief outline, strongly Reformed. They defend the deity of Christ in 9:5; stress
the Bible as the inspired, inerrant Word of God (1). Sometimes, the work lacks clarity.
* Stephen, John. Expositions on Romans, 1857. Sound in doctrine, practical in tone;
above mediocrity.
# Stifler, James M., The Epistle to the Romans, 1960. A lucid and informative
exposition, the result of years of study and teaching by a conservative Baptist professor
of the past century. The treatment is verse by verse. Premillennial.
! Stott, John R. W, Romans: God's Good News for the World, 1994. 432 pages. Stott
had a previous work just on Romans 5-8, Men Made New (1966). Now with treatment of
the whole book, he has one of the best overall popular and highly readable expositions
of Romans. He includes a brief introduction and a clear outline throughout. At the end
David Stone has added a study guide (408-32) for Stott's commentary. He repeats the
outline and lists key questions on many issues. Stott's labor is along lines readers have
learned to expect of him. He keeps his writing quite orderly, vital, clear, often arresting
in expression, conversant with views, seasoned with choice quotes, aware of Greek
word-meanings, often supplying reasons for interpretations. As expected, any reader
knowing exegesis and exposition will agree with Stott at times and disagree at others.
The work will be strong or weak depending not only on Stott's diligence and detail but
on the direction he takes on many verses. For serious lay readers and to some degree
for pastors, much is informative, provides competent review, pulls salient things
together with a refreshing vigor and style, and puts matters cogently. Yet the work is
overly general on some things, and passes over others where clear-cut comment would
help. As to its value on most passages, the commentary rates highly among popular,
vigorous expositions of Romans for the general reading audience. For diligent
expository pastors and teachers, it will retain value at many points, but they will need to
turn to other works besides.
^ Stowers, Stanley K., A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews and Gentiles, 1994. He
argues that Romans is not concerned with categories like sin and salvation, but rather,
Paul is concerned in trying to persuade Gentiles that Christian Judaism will give them
the self-mastery they seek; and that this form of Judaism, based on the faithfulness of a
Messiah who adapted his approach to meet the needs of Gentiles, offers more hope
than a Torah-based form of Judaism. There are so many things wrong with this position
32
that it is hard to know where to begin, but at least the book nicely presents one form
(but only one) of the so-called new perspective on Paul.
* Stuart, Moses. Commentary on Romans. Moses Stuart is judged to have been at his
best in Romans and Hebrews. The present work is in some points unsatisfactory, on
account of certain philosophico-theological views which he endeavors to maintain.
Haldane denounced him as by false criticism "misrepresenting the divine testimony in
some of the most momentous points of the Christian scheme." The charge was too
true.
^ Stuhlmacher, Peter, Romans, 1994. Now available in English and provides one of the
best contemporary Lutheran readings of Romans.
% Taylor, Vincent. The Epistle to the Romans, 1955., 100 pages A brief analysis with
some rather obvious comments. Arminian.
? On 5:12 he characterizes the whole Genesis account as “this mythology” (39).
He also removes the deity of Christ from 9:5.
* Terrot, C. H., Romans [in Greek] with Introduction, Paraphrase, and Notes, 1828. AntiCalvinistic. Why do not such writers let Romans alone? (note- why? Did Spurgeon think
that Romans belonged to the Calvinists and that only Calvinists had any business or
right to comment on Romans? “Anti-Calvinists” have just as much right to write
commentaries as do Calvinists-jc)
? Thomas, W. H. Griffith, St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. A Devotional Commentary,
464 pages. A very helpful, practical and devotional commentary. He defends the deity
of Christ in 9:5, gives different views on 5:12, stressing the reference is not to guilt, “but
to an evil nature which he inherited from Adam” (156).”
* Tholuck, A. F. Exposition of Romans, 1842. Moses Stuart confesses his great
obligations to this eminent divine, who far exceeds the most of his German brethren in
spirituality, and is not far behind him in scholarship; yet even he is none too orthodox
nor too reverent in his treatment of Holy Scripture.
* Vaughan, Charles John. Romans. The Greek Text, with English Notes, 1874, 327
pages. Very valuable to students of the Greek. The result of independent study and
honest labor.
# Vine, W. E., The Epistle to the Romans, Doctrine, Precept, Practice, 1948. A phraseby-phrase treatment by a British Plymouth Brethren scholar noted for his Expository
Dictionary of New Testament Words. Concise, rewarding, warm and clearly evangelical
in tone. Brings out much of the force of the Greek for the English student.
* Walford, W. Curea Romans, 1846. Walford makes comments of considerable value;
he does not stand in the front rank, but his mediocrity is respectable.
33
* Wardlaw, Ralph. Lectures on Romans, 1861. Wardlaw interprets with great sobriety
and spirituality, and we never consult him in vain, though we do not always agree with
him.
* Williams, H. W., (Wesleyan Minister). Exposition, 1869. This epistle has a fascination
for Arminian writers; it affords them an opportunity for showing their courage and
ingenuity. Mr. Williams's book is instructive.
# Wilson, Geoffrey B., Romans, A Digest of Reformed Comment, 1969. A concise
verse-by-verse interpretation; skillfully culls and blends views drawn from many
Reformed interpreters. This digest provides a valuable introduction to Reformed
exposition of Romans.
* Wilson, Thomas (Puritan). Commentary on Romans, 1614. Intended for the lessinstructed among the preacher's hearers, and put into the form of a dialogue. It is very
solid, but does not contain much which is very striking or original.
% Wuest, Kenneth Samuel. Romans in the Greek New Testament, 1956. Of value to
those with little or no understanding of the Greek
^ Ziesler, John, Romans in Trinity Press International New Testament Commentaries,
1989. Writes with clarity and frequently takes independent stands that provoke
reflection.
33
3
34
3
Romans Chapter 1
Romans 1-8 The Philosophy of Salvation, from The Unfolding Drama of Redemption by
W. Graham Scroggie, 3:135
The Christian Message 1:18-5:21
The Christian Life 7:1-8:39
1. Condemnation 1:18-3:20
1. Sanctification 6:1-8:11
a. Of the Gentiles 1:18-32
a. The Principle of It 6:1-14
b. Of the Jews 2:1-3:8
b. The Practice of It 6:15-7:6
c. Of the World 3:9-20
c. The Preventative of It 7:7-25
d. The Power of It 8:1-11
2. Justification 3:21-5:11
2. Glorification 8:12-30
a. The Ground of It 3:21-26
a. The Promise of It 8:12-17
b. The Means of It 3:27-4:25
b. The Expectation of It 8:18-27
c. The Effect of It 5:1-11
c. The Certainty of It 8:28-30
Summary 5:12-21
Summary 8:31-39
1. Introduction 1:1-7
1:1a-b Paul,c a servantd of Jesus Christ,e called to be an apostle,f separatedg-perfect
unto the gospel of God,h-i-j
passive participle
1a Note this first sentence. It is 126 words long in the King James. This is the
characteristic style of Paul, to write long and complex sentences (see Ephesians 1:3-14
for another example). The Apostle John had a different style, with short, simple yet
profound sentences. The doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture goes beyond the idea
of mechanical dictation. The personalities and styles of the human writers are clearly
observable, and yet what they wrote is free from error and exactly what God intended.
Each Bible writer had his own unique style and characteristics, and yet God used them
as His penmen to record exactly what the Lord wanted to be included in His Word.
1b A “brief” outline of chapters 1-3 could be:
1. The Gentiles are in a mess- 1
2. So are the Jews- 2
3. There’s not a thing you can do about it- 3
1c Paul identifies himself alone, without any co-worker such as Timothy, Barnabas or
Luke. Romans is all Pauline, with no outside influence. It truly is the Gospel According
to Paul. Through church history, departing from the doctrines Paul preached resulted in
heresy. To receive Paul's gospel and hold it fast, is salvation.
“Paul” is the name by which Paul wished to be known in all his letters. He never
uses the name 'Saul' though that was how he was known at the time of his conversion
and during the early part of his ministry and as a missionary of the church at Antioch. It
would appear from Acts 13:9 that at that time he already had the double name 'Saul,
Paul', the latter which he presumably had used in the past in Greek circles. As a Roman
citizen, 'Paul' was probably part of the formal name by which he was registered
35
3
according to law. In Acts the transition from 'Saul' to 'Paul' as his regular selfdesignation more or less coincides with the beginning of his active (recorded) outreach
to Gentiles beyond the eastern seaboard of the Mediterranean. Since 'Saul' was an
unfamiliar name outside Jewish circles the transition to the more easily recognized
name was a natural step. Yet, the completeness of the change strongly suggests a
transition in Paul's self-perception, at least in terms of social context within which he had
his identity, perhaps a certain freeing of himself from the person he had been perceived
to be as 'Saul', or a willingness to engage in new relationships other than those enjoyed
by 'Saul'. That 'Paul' thus reflects his increasing commitment as 'apostle to the Gentiles'
is therefore quite likely (James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, Word Biblical Commentary,
volume 38A, page 6-7)." Paul would rather take the name of the “little one” than of
Israel’s first king, not because he turned his back on his Jewish heritage, but as an act
of humility and spiritual self-depreciation.
“Many apparently opposite qualities went to make up the special fitness of St.
Paul for his great life-work. He combined in his own unique experience a personal
connection of the closest kind with the three principal social spheres of his age. He was
called out of the very heart of Judaism. Jewish legalism he knew from end to end. He
was called out of the very heart of Greek culture, for he lived his early life from infancy
in one of the great centres of Hellenic life, and was familiarized with all that was great
and noble in Greek literature. He had, moreover, enjoyed from birth all the varied
privileges of Roman citizenship. He was thus a Hebrew to the backbone; he was a
Greek in the fullest sense of the term; and he was a Roman citizen freeborn. But
besides all this, he united in his rare personality an unusual vigor of intellect, strength of
will, depth of feeling and sympathy. Intensity was the mark of his character, whether
intellectually or morally. Yet the one thing which surpassed all else in preparing him for
his apostleship has yet to be mentioned. His sudden and miraculous conversion and
call by the direct interposition of Christ Himself, beyond all else, fitted him to compare
together Judaism and Christianity with perfect fairness, and enabled him to set the two
systems side by side in vivid, startling contrast, as well as empowered him to testify how
that Christianity, instead of being a violent antagonism and outrage upon pure Judaism,
was the legitimate outcome, development and completion of Old Testament truth.” (J.
Sidlow Baxter, Explore The Book).
1d "servant" means "a bond slave", a willing servant to Christ. Not a slave in our
common definition, for that is not the understanding of the relationship that a Christian
has with the Lord. Christians are not slaves for slaves receive no compensation for
their work besides basic room and board. But servants receive a full reward for their
labors of love. And slaves do not love their masters but serve out of compulsion.
Servants love their masters and serve because they desire to. Don't ever degrade a
Christian by calling him a mere "slave" of Christ when “servant” would be a higher and
more noble title. The Christian may consider himself a slave but God sees him as a
servant and a son.
"Servant" is the more noble term and it was a favorite of Paul’s. Strong's # 1401
doulov doulos; a bondservant. From deo deo, "to bind". It also denotes absolute
dependence. The emphasis here is on the service of the servant and of the dependence
36
3
of the slave upon his lord. This service is not bound by the reason of choice by the
servant for he must perform his service whether he wishes to or not. He is subject as a
servant to an alien will, that of his owner. It is never used in a disparaging or
contemptuous fashion in the New Testament. Although Christians were not hesitant to
consider themselves the "doulos" of God, the Rabbis and Pharisees would never apply
it to themselves. The term was applied however to those who performed menial service
for the rabbis. To the Greeks, the word was a despised one but to the Asian mind, it
was a noble title of honor used of subjects of rulers and of God.
To translate "doulos" as slave is not consistent with the New Testament concept
of service to God. Christians are servants, not slaves. A slave works out of compulsion
as he does not desire such service. He does not love his master. He receives bare
minimum wages, if any. But a servant serves from love and because he loves his
master (Exodus 21:2-6). He receives good wages and even may be adopted by his
master. Thus, there is a world of difference between a "servant" and "slave".
In a society where slavery was widespread and freedom was cherished, it was
quite something for a man to willingly consider himself as a bondservant or a slave.
The concept was not a popular one in Roman culture. Paul willingly adopts such an
offensive concept to express his relationship to Christ. While the concept of being a
slave was abhorrent to the Greek and Roman mind, Asians saw it as a title of honor as
a subject of kings, emperors and God.
The books of Romans, Philippians, Titus, James, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation
also start off with the authors identifying themselves as “servants”. The apostles were
not such much leaders or “bishops” in the modern denominational sense of the word,
but servants. The pope likes to style himself “a servant of the servants of Christ”, which
would be pathetic if it wasn’t so laughable. The pope is too proud and arrogant to serve
anyone, judging by the titles and offices he claims for himself. But a true man of God is
humble, does not promote himself, does not attempt to build a personality cult around
himself. Beware of any man who tries to do these things or has a proud and haughty
attitude, and that goes for in and out of the church.
1e “A servant of Jesus Christ” Paul was servant before he was apostle. His first
words, as he lay in the dust on the Damascus road in Acts 9, were, "Who art thou,
Lord?", as a servant asking for instructions from his master. What caused the change
from a persecuting, arrogant little rabbi to the great apostle who considered himself a
servant of the man he once despised? The new birth!
There is no greater honor for a man than to be the willing servant of such a great
God, Who would have us in His service. All men must serve something, either the
world, the flesh, the devil, or God. No man is autonomous in that he serves no one. As
a servant, your life is no longer your own. You don’t decide on “the church of your
choice.” You go to the church of His choice. You don’t read the Bible version you prefer;
you read the Bible of God’s preference. He decides where you live, what job you have,
who you marry. You are to conform to Him. It is His will, not yours. “Ye are not your
own...therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s” (1
Corinthians 6:19–20).
37
3
1f At the time of this writing, Paul had not yet been to Rome and had not met this
church and had no direct involvement with it, so he starts off by affirming his apostolic
credentials to them. Paul was called to be an apostle, in opposition to any human
ambition. The call is of God and not man.
1g Paul declares he was separated and sanctified unto the Gospel ministry. Paul was
separated three times:
1. From his mother's womb- his conception (Galatians 1:5)
2. On the Damascus-Jerusalem Road- his conversion (Acts 9:15,16)
3. In Antioch- his call to missionary service, with Barnabas (Acts 13:1,2).
As a Pharisee, Paul was a “Separated One” (that was one title of a Pharisee). When
Christ saved him, Paul became a “Separated One” unto Christ instead.
1h "The gospel of God", is from God, of divine origin, not of man, as false gospels are.
1i “Paul never thought of himself as a man who had aspired to an honor; he thought of
himself as a man who had been given a task." (William Barclay, The Letter to the
Romans in The Daily Study Bible).
1j “There are some brethren who in preaching are as timid as mice; but on a political
platform they can roar like lions. Had not they better take to what they like best, and
give up the work at which they are not at home? For my part, I believe that I am like
Paul when he says that he was “separated unto the gospel of God.” I am set apart unto
the gospel, cut off from everything else that I may preach the glorious gospel
of the blessed God to the perishing sons of men. (Charles Spurgeon).”
***************************************************************************************************
1:2 (Which he had promised aforea-aorist middle by his prophets in the holy
scriptures,)b
2a “promised afore” And naturally, what God has promised, He will fulfill. God cannot
break a promise of fail to fulfill it. To do so would mean that He is man, and not God, for
men prove themselves to be so unfaithful continually. This also shows that the Gospel
pay was preaching was not some new thing hatched up by Paul, but was a very old
thing, prophesied by the Old Testament prophets.
2b "holy Scriptures" This is the only occurrence of this phrase in the New Testament.
The Scriptures are holy because they are given by God, are divinely inspired and are
without error. Paul’s use of this term shows his extremely high regard for the
Scriptures. Can the scriptures be anything but holy? They are holy because they are of
God,
In this context, the “holy Scriptures” would be the Old Testament, as very little
of the New Testament had been prepared at the time of this writing. To those who think
the Old Testament to be inferior, or not to be as useful as the New Testament, that error
must be reconsidered in the light of such a verse as this.
38
3
We believe that today, these “holy Scriptures” are to be found in the King James Bible
in English, which is the preserved word of God for us. All modern versions are but
perversions of these “holy Scriptures”.
***************************************************************************************************
1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christa our Lord,b-c-d which was madeaorist middle participle
of the seed of David according to the flesh;e
3a “Jesus Christ” is missing in modern versions.
3b A very clear statement of the sonship of Jesus Christ.
3c "Jesus Christ our Lord,"
Jesus- His human name
Christ- official designation
our Lord- title of authority
3d “Jesus Christ our Lord’ Ten times in Romans Paul uses this title, or, "Our Lord
Jesus Christ," that full name beloved by the apostles and all instructed saints from
Pentecost onward: for "God hath made Him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye
crucified" (Acts 2:36). Jesus, His personal name (Matthew 1:21) as Savior; Christ, God's
Anointed One to do all things for us; Lord, His high place over us all for whom His work
was done; and as, truly, Lord of all things in heaven and earth (Acts 10:36). (William
Newell, Romans, Verse-by-Verse).”
3e "seed of David according to the flesh" Jesus was a Jew while on earth, from the
family of David, both physically (through Mary) and legally through Joseph (as his legal
[not biological] Son).
***************************************************************************************************
1:4 And declareda-aorist passive participle to be the Son of God with power,b according to
the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:c
4a This declaration was with power. Is there no other way to declare the God of
Eternity than in power? We dare not be as those who peep and mutter in dark
sentences, but fully declare the truths of the Word of God in full assurance and
confidence, speaking in absolutes and not brooking any doubt or “gray areas” in our
preachings. God will be declared in no other way. We must not be like the scribes and
Pharisees of Christ’s day, for it was said of Christ that He spoke not as the religious
leaders of His day, but in power, as “never a man spake as this man”.
4b Jesus was declared to be the Son of God by the Father Himself in Matthew 3:17.
No other declaration of man is necessary, although there are plenty of those kinds of
declrartions as well. The Bible is a book of very strong and bold declarations. There
39
3
are no Scriptural half-truths, presented in a tepid and uncertain manner. The great
divine truths that the Bible declares are done so with no debate, no option. And they
are presented in full assurance and confidence- “This is truth and there is no other.”
Christ preached like this, with and authority that surprised everyone of His day. The
scribes mumbled in their uncertainty and lack of authority as most false teachers do.
God’s preachers do not suffer from this uncertainty. Read the Old Testament prophets.
Read the sermons and writings by Peter, James and John and you will see these bold
declarations. That is because these men knew the truth and accepted the truth and
thus, they spoke as they had heard.
4c The resurrection was a confirmation of the sonship of Christ. Christ said He was
going to raise from the dead in fulfillment of the Old Testament scriptures and He was.
***************************************************************************************************
1:5 By whom we have receiveda-aorist grace and apostleship, for obedience to the
faithb among all nations, for his name:c
5a Two things we have received:
1. Grace. We have all received this at salvation for we are saved by grace. After
salvation, we live within the grace of God for our Christian walk and service continually.
2. Apostleship, although not all believers received this office and it is no longer
operating today. But the Church as a whole received this temporary office and
benefited tremendously by it. Any preacher, or one sent with a commission from the
Lord, is an apostle. You don’t have to be an ecclesiastical “big-wig” to be an apostleyou just have to be sent with a commission.
5b There is a “faith” to be obeyed. We have commandments from God that we must
obey by faith, such as “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” or “Repent and believe”.
5c The Apostolic Mission is:
1. Make men obedient to the Faith- the purpose
2. Among all nations- the scope
3. For His name- the motive
****************************************************************************************************
1:6 Among whom arepresent yea also the calledb of Jesus Christ:
6a Emphatic.
6b We are “the called” since we were called of God unto salvation and we accepted
that call. We, as the Romans once were, idolaters and sinners, on our way to hell, until
God called us unto salvation. Thank God we responded through the inward convicting
work of the Holy Spirit! No longer are we called by the devil or by the world but we have
received the highest and noblest calling a man can receive- to be the called of Jesus
Christ.
40
****************************************************************************************************
1:7 To all that bepresent participle in Rome,a-b beloved of God,c called to be saints:d-e-f
Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.g-h-i
7a The gospel had penetrated even to Rome, the heart of the empire and the most
important and powerful city in the world in Paul’s day. But Paul, knowing the power of
the gospel (1:16) would not be surprised. If the gospel can go even to the heart of
Gentile world power and be effective, then it could have a similar effect anywhere. In
our day, we would expect the gospel to be able to penetrate to Washington, New York,
San Francisco, Mexico City…any earthly city, if only someone would take it there and
minister it there.
As the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul would have a natural burden and concern for
the capital city of the Gentile world power.
Naturally, Paul is not addressing every single inhabitant in Rome, only those who
were in the church at Rome.
7b Let's take a moment to examine the city of Rome as it was in Paul's day. It was the
center of the known world. Jews had returned to Rome after being banished by
Claudius. Rome was 20 miles in circumference with 30 gates, 420 pagan temples, 5
theaters, 2 amphitheaters, 7 circuses, 16 marble baths. The Circus Maximus stadium
could seat 200,000. To be a Roman citizen (like Paul) was the highest honor a man
could have in this day. Many spent small fortunes to buy citizenship. Rome's population
was near 2 million, half of whom were slaves. There were 700 senators, 10,000
knights, 15,000 troops. Many of the common people lived off public welfare, sleeping in
the streets. All they lived for was bread and circuses- "Feed us and entertain us!"
Rome was a moral sewer. All Romans cared for was fulfilling the lust of the flesh. From
the humble beginnings at this time, the Church at Rome (later to be known as the
Church of Rome- how much of a difference is bound up between "Church at Rome" and
"Church of Rome"!) grew to 44 presbyters, 7 deacons, 7 sub-deacons, 42 acolytes, 50
exorcists, readers and porters and 1500 widows, poor and sick, by the 3rd century.
“Intellect, Rome had in plenty; the noblest efforts of her genius are scarcely
surpassed; her law is the foundation of the best of our codes of jurisprudence; art she
borrowed but appreciated; her military system is still the wonder of the world; her great
men remain among a multitude of competitors. And yet how pitiless she was! What a
tigress! Amid all the ruins of her cities we find none of a hospital, none I believe of an
orphan school in an age that made many orphans. The pious aspirations and efforts of
individuals never seem to have touched the conscience of the people. Rome incarnate
had no conscience; she was a lustful, devouring beast, made more bestial by her
intelligence and splendor (Sir H. Rider Haggard, quoted by John Phillips in Exploring
Romans, page 19).”
Rome was (and still is) a vile sewer, much like modern cities are today. Modern
Rome is a moral sewer, as is Washington, New York, Chicago, Mexico City…any city
you care to name. When Martin Luther fulfilled a lifelong dream to visit Rome (as he did
on business for his monastery before his break with Rome), he expected to see a holy
41
city, filled with saints and pilgrims. Instead, he saw a city wholly given over to the flesh,
with open prostitution and drunken priests who were saying mass in a mocking fashion.
At one time, the pope taxed prostitution in Rome and most of that tax money came from
his priests! And time would fail to describe the great sin in our modern cities, even in our
small towns. Sin is universal and affects all centers of human activity and habitation, no
matter how large or small. The proverb of the day was “If there is a hell, Rome is built
over it”.
We don’t know how the church was started by Peter certainly had nothing to do
with it as we have no indication or reason to believe that Peter was ever within 500 miles
of Rome. See remarks in Romans 16. The church could have been started by converts
from the Day of Pentecost, possibly Roman soldiers or officials who would have taken
the gospel back to Rome when their tour of duty in Israel was completed. Tradition says
this is how the church in Wales was started, around A.D. 63.
"The church at Rome was then a flourishing church; but since that time, how is
the gold become dim! The Epistle to the Romans is now an epistle against the Romans.
(Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible).”
7c “beloved of God” What a high honor, even higher than being a Roman citizen! Yet
such a title could be had, whether you were bond of free, without money and without
price.
7d "called to be saints..." They were referred to as “the called of Jesus Christ” in 1:6.
Paul now expands on that in saying that there were also called to be saints. First comes
the call to salvation by Jesus Christ, then the call to sanctification in developing a
Christian life and walk. The Roman Christians were called to sanctification, as all saints
are, not just the few of the Roman Catholic system. All born-again Christians are saints,
with holiness and Christ-likeness as the goal (8:29). Christians, as saints:
1. Are separated from the world by a holy calling- John 15:19; 2 Corinthians
6:14-18
2. Are made partakers of the divine nature- John 3:6; 2 Peter 1:4; 1 John 3:9
3. Are sanctified- 1 Corinthians 1:2
4. Are willingly devoted to divine service- Psalm 110:3; 2 Corinthians 8:5
We are first called to be saved, then we are made saints by the power of God.
7e "called to be saints..." What a high calling! God has called us to be saints in the
sense that He wants us to live as saints in the midst of this wicked and evil generation.
Are we living up to this high calling? And can a man receive a higher calling? Men may
think to be a president is a great thing, or to be a Marine or a billionaire or be elected to
some sports Hall of Fame, but no earthly honor or calling can compare to a heavenly
and a divine one.
7f Most of the other translations render this “saints by calling” or “sanctified by calling”.
7g "from God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ..." The Father and Son are the
only true sources of grace and peace.
42
7h Verse 7 ends Paul's unusually long salutation.
7i It seems odd that the Holy Spirit is not directly mentioned here, although He is
certainly “in the area” and is not forgotten or overlooked by Paul.
****************************************************************************************************
2. Commendation for the Church at Rome 1:8,9
1:8 First, I thankpresent my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is
spokena-present passive of throughout the whole world.b-c
8a Tyndale, Geneva and Bishops all use “published”.
8b "spoken throughout the whole world..." Not literally, of course, since no one in
South America had any idea about the church in Rome, but at through the Roman
world, or at least through the new, civilized world. The Roman church had a good
reputation among the other local churches in the empire. Unfortunately, our modern
churches are so weak, spiritually, that our faith is usually not even spoken of across
town.
8c Verses 8-12 give us an important lesson on prayer, (with Paul as our example).
There at least eight things we learn about prayer from these verses:
1. Prayer Should Include Thanksgiving (1:8)
2. Prayer Must Be "Through Jesus Christ" (1:8)
3. Prayer Should Be Constant (1:9)
4. Prayer Should Be Genuine (1:9)
5. Prayer Should Involve Intercession (1:9)
6. Prayer Should Be Specific (1:10)
7. Prayer Should Be Submissive (1:10)
8. Prayer Should Be Rightly Motivated (1:11-12)
***************************************************************************************************
1:9 For God ispresent my witness,a whom I servepresent with my spiritb in the gospel
of his Son, that without ceasingc I makepresent middle mention of you always in my
prayers;d-e-f g-h
9a God is my witness Paul calls upon God to certify the veracity of his heart and
statement to the Romans. This is about as close to an oath as a Christian should get.
9b serve with my Spirit There is no other way to serve God. Yes we use the body but
our service to God is ultimately based on our spirit and our relationship with God more
than our horizontal, physical activity. More can be accomplished with spiritual service
than mere physical ministry.
43
9c without ceasing... Or "repeatedly".
9d always in my prayers The Geneva Bible moves this phrase to verse 10.
9e “without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers” Do we pray
continually for those things and people that we are burdened for? Short, “one-shot”
prayers, as a child knocking on a door and then running away (a game they often play)
accomplishes nothing in terms of prayer. If we had a genuine burden for something or
someone, we would give the throne of grace no rest until we received the answer.
9f “This man, Paul, did a great deal by prayer. I remember a minister, who is now with
the Lord, who was thanked by his people for his wonderful sermons; but he said to
them, "You never thanked me for my prayers, yet they were the best part of my service
for you." When men of God are mighty in prayer, we owe much to them (Charles
Spurgeon).”
9g The Geneva and the ESV move “always in my prayers” to verse 10.
9h “No wonder that they prospered so well when Paul always made mention of them in
his prayers. Some churches would prosper better if some of you remembered them
more in prayer. Of course, you all pray for the church of which you are members; could
you not set aside in your heart a little space for some poor church that is dwindling
down to nothing? Could you not pray it up again? Who knows what blessing would
come upon pastor and people if you bore them on your hearts? (Charles Spurgeon).”
****************************************************************************************************
3. Paul's Desire to Come To Rome 1:10-13
1:10 Making request,present middle participle if by any means now at length I might have
a prosperous journeyfuture passive by the will of God to comeaorist infinitive unto you.a-b
10a Paul's travel plans are detailed in Romans 15:28, all, of course, based on the will of
God. Paul could plan until he was blue in the face but if God did no bless it or allow it, it
would all come to naught. We all need to learn this very difficult lesson, that we should
always write our plans in our date book in pencil. See also 1:13.
10b “Paul wanted to go to Rome; but I do not suppose that he ever thought that he
would go there at the expense of the government, with an imperial guard to take care of
him all the way. We pray, and God gives us the answer to our petitions; but often in a
way of which we should never have dreamed. Paul goes to Rome as a prisoner for
Christ's sake. Now suppose Paul had gone to Rome in any other capacity, he could not
have seen Caesar, he could not have obtained admission into Caesar's house. The
prison of the Palatine was just under the vast palace of the Caesars; and everybody in
the house could come into the guard-room. And have a talk with Paul if they were
minded so to do. I suppose that,
44
whatever I might be willing to pay, I could not have preached in the palace of the
Queen, even in this nominally Christian country; but Paul was installed as a royal
chaplain over Caesar's household in the guard-room of the Palatine prison. How
wonderfully God works to accomplish his divine purposes! (Charles Spurgeon)”
***************************************************************************************************
1:11 For I longa- present to seeaorist infinitive you,b that I may impartaorist subjunctive unto you
some spiritual gift,c to the end ye may be established;d-e-aorist passive infinitive
11a Strong’s #1971 epipotew epipotheô; from potheo (to yearn); to dote upon, intensely
crave possession, a desire that does not easily brook delay, from epi epi (Strong’s
#1909) an intensive, and pothew potheô, to yearn, meaning then "to yearn intensely", to
dote upon, intensely crave possession, a desire that does not easily brook delay.
11b Paul had a constant and burning desire to visit Rome. He wished to go to impart
some spiritual gift unto them that they may be established. This would be a grave insult
if Peter had been reigning as pope as this time (according to Roman legend). If Peter
was Pope, why did Paul want to go and do for the Romans what Peter was supposed to
do? Or was Peter not doing a very good job as Pope? Certainly Paul didn’t think that
he was spiritually superior than the “first vicar of Christ, the Bishop of Rome!” Peter had
no business in Rome anyway as he was the apostle to the circumcision (Galatians
2:7,9) while Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles.
Ultimately, it is the Holy Spirit, and not an apostle or any other man, who imparts
spiritual gifts upon Christians. But Paul wanted to come and leave something spiritual
behind, a gift that was spiritual (as opposed to a “spiritual gift” bestowed by the Holy
Spirit”), to leave some spiritual token behind.
11c “spiritual gift” I do not think Paul necessarily had the spiritual gifts of 1
Corinthians 12 in mind. If he did, he would have probably used the phrase in the plural.
He did want to do some good to this church and leave something behind, spiritually, that
would be a blessing to these believers. Paul does not specify what this gift might be, as
he may not have even known what the Lord would do through him and his ministry to
the Roman believers.
11d “to the end ye may be established” The establishment Paul speaks of is the
desire to help bring the Roman Christians to spiritual maturity. This is the desire of
every preacher- at least it should be, and it should be the goal of every ministry. If a
preacher is trying to do anything else with his people than to bring them to perfection
and maturity, then he is an unfaithful minister and is probably a false teacher. Paul
could bestow no material or economic gift to the saints at Rome for he was a poor man.
His gifts would be spiritual, apostolic and eternal. Paul was not planning to bring any
new doctrine to Rome, but to establish them in the old truths.
11e Tyndale, Coverdale and Geneva use “strengthened” for “established”.
****************************************************************************************************
45
1:12 Thata is,present that I may be comforted togetherb-aorist passive infinitive with you-c-d by
the mutual faith both of you and me.
12a Emphatic.
12b The versions all use “consolation” or “comforted” while the ESV uses “mutually
encouraged”, which is weaker.
12c Paul needs spiritual comfort and encouragement just as much- if not moreso- than
the Romans and those Christians who were not apostles or in positions of spiritual
leadership. That is because of all the pressures and discouragements that are all part
of the ministry. They can and do take a heavy toll on the preacher so he needs God’s
people to help him as well. This comfort should be a two-way street, with preacher and
congregation encouraging each other. The preacher often does this through his pulpit
and teaching ministry while the congregation can comfort their preacher by attending his
services, listening attentively to his messages, verbally encouraging him and praying for
him.
12d “Paul wanted his faith to establish theirs, and their faith to establish his. Christians
grow rich by and exchange of spiritual commodities; and I am afraid some Christians
are very poor because they do not engage in the spiritual bartering with one another.
You know how it was in the old time, "They that feared the Lord spake often one to
another." Shall I tell you how it is now? They that fear not the Lord speak often one
against another. That is a very sad difference. Oh, for more Christian communion; for
when we blend our "mutual faith:, we are "comforted together"; each believer grows
stronger as he cheers his brother in the Lord! (Charles Spurgeon)
****************************************************************************************************
1:13 Now I wouldpresent not have you ignorant,infinitive brethren, that oftentimes I
purposedaorist middle to comeaorist infinitive unto you,a (but was letb-aorist passive hitherto,) that
I might haveaorist subjunctive some fruit among you also,c even as among other
Gentiles.d
13a Paul planned to go to Rome but was hindered at this writing. No doubt some at
Rome complained “If he wants to come, why hasn’t he come yet?” Paul answers that
question here.
13b "Let" is an old English word meaning "hindered", from the Anglo-Saxon word
"lettan", to hinder or to make late. Both the Geneva Bible and King James use it. Paul
eventually got to Rome but he got there not in God's perfect will. I believe it was God's
will for Paul to go to Rome but Paul rushed things and was warned several times in Acts
not to go as he was planning on doing. Paul did anyway and made to Rome, but not in
a limo but in the back end of a pickup truck. No doubt Satan was involved in this
hindering of Paul to get to Rome but I think the Holy Spirit was also in it, but for naturally
46
a different reason. Satan wouldn't want Paul in Rome to keep them from being helped
and established. The Holy Spirit wanted Paul in Rome but only at the right time and in
the right circumstance. The door was closed at this writing, which reminds us of a good
maxim: "When God closes the door, don't try to climb in through the window". This also
shows that Paul suffered from a common problem with ministers for which he had to
constantly apologize. He said that he would do something or be somewhere at a
certain time, but circumstances would change and he would be unable to keep his word.
This happens all the time to busy men. Some churches were complaining that Paul was
always promising to visit but he never did. Paul explains here why he had been unable
to keep his promise to visit Rome, although he still fully intended to. In Romans 15:22.
Paul does not imply a Satanic opposition or hindrance regarding his plans to visit Rome
as he mentions regarding his intention to visit Thessalonica in 1 Thessalonians 2:18.
The importance and labor of Paul's ministry is what kept him from visiting Rome earlier.
Also see note under 1:16.
13c "That I might have some fruit among you..." This is the minister's desire. It is
not to build a huge church. It is not necessarily to see a lot of people saved. It is not to
raise a lot of money. It is most certainly not to erect an ego-ministry to himself. Paul's
primary desire was to be a blessing to the saints and be profitable to them. The fruit is
not merely soulwinning (although it does include that) but also Christian maturity, as in
the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22ff.
13d “even as among other Gentiles” Paul desired the same bearing of spiritual fruit
among the Romans that he had seen in the other Gentile churches he had ministered
to. That’s a good hope, although towns and cities differ. A “successful” ministry in one
town might not be duplicated in another town just down the road. One size does not fit
all and some areas are more difficult to minister in than others.
****************************************************************************************************
4. Paul's Debt 1:14
1:14 I am-a-present debtora both to the Greeks, and to the Barbariansc-d both to the
wise,e and to the unwisef-g
14a The ESV “under obligation” is no improvement over the traditional text’s “debtor”.
14b “I am” We see the first of Paul’s three “I am’s” in 1:14-16:
1. I am debtor- 1:14
2. I am ready- 1:15
3. I am not ashamed- 1:16
14c "Greeks...Barbarians" The cultured and uncultured. It is interesting that the
Coverdale uses “ungreeks” for the King James “barbarians”.
47
14d “Barbarian” Strong’s #915 barbarov barbaros; a foreigner, non-Greek. The
Greeks counted all other nations barbarians, not only on account of their language, but
their want of culture. A "barbarian" is like a stutter, a "ba-ba-ba-barbarian", one who
couldn't speak correctly. Herodotus said the morals of the Barbarians were superior to
those of the Greeks.
This would include the Gentiles. For an ex-Pharisee as Paul was, the thought of
a Jew being a spiritual debtor to Gentile dogs who were uncultured and savage must
have been a very difficult concept! Paul, in his Judiastic pride, would have considered
himself far superior to any Gentile, especially if that Gentile was considered a
Barbarian. But now this proud Jew is a debtor to those he once despised.
14e "the wise" The educated, at least those who think themselves wise. But as we all
know, education does not equal wisdom.
14f "the unwise" The uneducated. These ones are usually the most open to the gospel
because secular education and philosophy has not ruined them or blinded their minds to
the truth.
14g In other words, everyone! Every man Paul met was a man whom Paul owned the
chance to hear the Gospel. God made Paul a great apostle then made him a great
debtor. The unsaved world was his creditor. This debt is naturally spiritual, not
physical.
****************************************************************************************************
5. Paul the Ready 1:15-16
1:15 So, as much as in me is, I am readya to preachb the gospelc-aorist middle infinitive to
you that are at Romed also.e
15a "I am ready" "I think Paul might have used these words as his motto. We had once
a Saxon king called Ethelred the Unready; here we have an apostle who might be called
Paul the Ready. The Lord Jesus no sooner called to him out of heaven, 'Saul, Saul, why
persecutest thou me?' than he answered, 'Who art thou, Lord?' Almost directly after, his
question was, 'Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?' He was no sooner converted, than
he was ready for holy service; and 'straightway he preached Christ' in the synagogues
at Damascus. All through his life, whatever happened to him, he was always ready. If he
had to speak to crowds in the street, he had the fitting word; or if to the elite upon Mars
hill, he was ready for the philosophers. If he talked to the Pharisees, he knew how to
address them; and when he was brought before the Sanhedrim, and perceived the
Pharisaic and Sadducean elements in it, he knew how to avail himself of their mutual
jealousies to help his own escape. See him before Felix, before Festus, before Agrippa,
he is always ready; and when he came to stand before Nero, God was with him, and
delivered him out of the mouth of the lion. If you find him on board ship, he is ready to
comfort men in the storm; and when he gets on shore, a shipwrecked prisoner, he is
ready to gather sticks, to help to make the fires. At all points he is an all-round man, and
48
an all-ready man; always ready to go wherever his Master sends him, and to do
whatever his Lord appoints him. A Moravian was about to be sent by Zinzendorf to
preach in Greenland. He had never heard of it before; but his leader called him, and
said, 'Brother, will you go to Greenland?' He answered, 'Yes, sir.' 'When will you go?'
'When my boots come home from the cobbler;' and he did go as soon as his boots
came home. He wanted nothing else but just that pair of boots, and he was ready to go.
Paul, not even waiting for his boots to come home from the cobbler, says, 'I am ready.'
(Charles Spurgeon, "Paul The Ready" Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, volume 38,
sermon 2285)."
15b “Preach,--what? A Christ that the Jewish nation had themselves officially rejected, a
Christ who had been despised and crucified at their cries,-- by a Roman governor! To
preach a Way that the Jews in Rome would tell Paul was "everywhere spoken against"
(Acts 28:22). (William Newell, Romans Verse-by-Verse).”
15c "I am ready to preach the gospel" Angels desire to look into the gospel but only
men are permitted to preach it. The only time in Scripture you see angels preaching is
in Revelation 14:6 where an angel preaches the Everlasting Gospel toward the end of
the Tribulation period. This is because there is no human witness remaining (except a
very, very small remnant) left to preach and witness in the final hours of the Tribulation,
so God resorts to angels. But angels are poor preachers, since they understand
nothing about sin and redemption. And Paul wanted to go to Rome as a preacher, not
as a tourist. The “tourist sites” in Rome had no interest for Paul. The souls of men did.
Nor was Paul intimidated about going to the most important city in the world, which was
seat of the most powerful empire ever. He was intent to go and to do some spiritual
good there. Let us follow Paul’s example and be always ready to preach and to
witnesses wherever and whenever God places us and whatever our current
circumstances may be.
15d "I am ready to preach...at Rome" If Peter was in Rome, reigning as the first pope,
wasn't he preaching the gospel? If Peter was in Rome at this time (as the Roman
Catholic Church insists he was), then why did Paul feel that he had to go to Rome to
preach? If Peter was there, reigning as the first pope, wasn't he preaching? Or did
Paul believe Peter's preaching to be inferior or doctrinally incorrect that he had to go
and correct Peter (which he did in Galatians 2:11-13)? The answer is clear- Peter never
got within 500 miles of Rome, since he was the apostle to the circumcision. The last
time we see Peter, he is in Babylon, in the eastern part of the Empire (1 Peter 5:13,
which is NOT a cryptic reference to the city of Rome as the Roman Catholic church and
other apologists for Rome try to make it to be).
15e Paul intended to go to Rome but he never assumed that Satan would have to foot
the bill and provide the transportation! Paul probably wondered how and when he’d be
able to make this trip and how it would be paid for, but as usual, God made the wrath of
man to please Him and to serve His own purposes, even if he did go in chains and got
there “soaking wet”.
49
****************************************************************************************************
1:16a For I am not ashamedb-c-present middle of the gospel of Christ:d for it ispresent the
powere of God unto salvation to every onef that believes;present participle to the Jew
first,g and also to the Greek.
16a “Many of the great piano concertos begin with a crashing chord and then state the
theme which they are going to develop. The reason is that they were often performed
at private gatherings in great houses. When the pianist first seated himself at the piano,
there was still a buzz of conversation. He played the crashing chord to attract the
attention of the company, and then, when attention was obtained, the theme was stated.
Up to these two verses, Paul had been making contact with the people to whom he was
writing; he has been attracting their attention. Now the introduction is over, and the
theme is stated (William Barclay, The Letter to the Romans, The Daily Study Bible
Series, page 18).”
16b "I am not ashamed" Paul gloried in the gospel- Galatians 6:14. No doubt some of
Paul’s enemies associated his seeming reluctance to visit Rome to the fact that he was
afraid to go head-to-head with the philosophers and politicians in Rome. Paul feared
that his gospel would be overwhelmed by the power and might of Rome, so he just
chose to stay away. But Paul made it clear that he was not ashamed of his gospel and
that it was due to circumstances beyond his control that he was unable to visit Rome
(1:13). No one was able to intimidate him against the gospel, to apologize for it to to
shy away from it. The philosophers couldn’t do it at Athens. Neither the Gentiles or
Jews were able to do it at Corinth, Ephesus or Jerusalem. The Judaizers couldn’t do it
in the churches of Galatia. And Rome couldn’t do it, even while throwing Paul into one
of their dungeons and eventually taking off his head. No doubt the high and mighty
Roman philosophers may have tried to make Paul look like a fool in his preaching of this
gospel, but their mockings and scorn had no effect on Paul or toward his attitude toward
this gospel that he had received and preached. Many are ashamed of the gospel. It
was too simple. It was too complex. It had not enough mystery about it. It had not
enough of worldly wisdom about it, and so on…and excuse to oppose it and to try to
excuse themselves from it.
16c “ashamed” Unfortunately, all of us have been, at one time or another, when we
failed to speak up to defend Christ or His Word when we knew it was under attack. The
fact that we tend of play thecoward far too often should make us ashamed of ourselves.
We are afraid of ridicule or loss of a job or income or prestige, or we are simply lazy.
Whatever the motivation, they all lead to the same condemnation- cowardice and
shame of our Great God! May God help us to repent of such a great sin and may we
plead for courage and spiritual manhood in this day to witness effectively and faithfully
for Christ as Paul did. We don’t see people ashamed of their political affiliations or
letting you know what their favorite sports team may be, but how often are we ashamed
of Christ!
50
16d “of Christ” is missing in modern versions, including the ESV. Whose Gospel is it
that Paul is ready to preach? All “gospels” are not alike. You have variations of the
“true” gospel (mainly dispensational distinctions) as well as a thousand varieties of false
“gospels”.
16e "Power" Strong's #1411 dunamiv dunamis, strength power, ability, inherent power,
power residing in a thing by virtue of its nature, or which a person or thing exerts and
puts forth. We get two related English words:
1. Dynamite- a destructive power
2. Dynamo- a constructive power, like a hydroelectric dam that generates
electricity.
The Gospel is both! The Gospel can either build up a man in the faith or tear
down a man if he should reject it. The same sun that melts the wax hardens the clay.
The Gospel that saves the man who accepts it condemns the man who rejects it. It is
through the preaching of this gospel that God uses as the active agent, or power, in
conversion of sinners.
16f "every one" opposed Jewish exclusiveness (and Calvinism!). "That believeth"
opposed Jewish legalism and works. Here, we see that the preacher traffics in immortal
souls.
16g "the Jew first" The priority of the Jew in salvation as he receives the gospel offer
first. The Gospel was preached to the Jew first (Acts 2-10) then to the Greek (Gentile)
(Acts 10+). The Jew in inherited a precedence not a preference. Their position toward
the Gospel gives them a greater responsibility toward it. They received it first. With
such a great privilege comes a corresponding great responsibility toward it.
***************************************************************************************************
6. The Revelation of the Wrath of God 1:17,18
1:17 For therein is the righteousnessa-b of God revealedpresent passive from faith to
faith:c as it is written,d-perfect passive The just shall livefuture middle by faith.e-f-g-h
17a “righteousness” Strong’s #1343 dikaiosunh dikaiosunê; equity, (Christian)
justification, justice. In the Greek classics there appears an eternal, divine, unwritten
principle of right, dwelling in the human consciousness, shaping both the physical and
the moral ordering of the world, and personified as Themis. This divine ordering
requires that men should be shown or pointed to that which is according to it- a definite
circle of duties and obligations which constitute right. It has a both religious and secular
understanding. Each man stands in direct and primary relation to the holy God as He is
by the law of His own nature. Righteousness is union with God in character. Plato
designated dikaiosunh, as inseparably linked with swfrosunh sôphrosunê (Strong’s
#4997), soberness or sobriety, the expression of a sound mind, the ability to place
restrictions on one's freedom in action.
51
17b The Coverdale adds “the righteousness that is of value before God”.
17c “from faith to faith” Literally “out of faith into faith”.
17d "It is written" Perfect tense- it has been written and remains written, not to be
changed or altered. It is a completed action with continuous results or the continuance
of an act completed in the past. The components are always a past action and
continuous results. References to the Scriptures like this are often presented in the
perfect tense. "The just shall live by faith" is one of those unalterable truths of
Christianity. This perfect tense in reference to New Testament references to Old
Testament texts is used 62 times in the New Testament, 16 times in Romans (1:17;
2:24; 3:4,10; 4:17; 8:36; 9:13,33; 10:15; 11:8,26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3,9,21). This usage
of the perfect is a strong argument for the verbal and plenary preservation of the
Scripture, as the written Old Testament word stands forever and continues to.
17e "the just shall live by faith" The righteousness of God is revealed from faith to
faith in verse 17. The just shall live by faith, which is quoted from Habakkuk 2:4 (also
repeated in Galatians 3:11 and Hebrews 10:38) with one change:
1. Habakkuk: "The just shall live by his faith".
2. Paul: "The just shall live by faith".
Paul left out "his" and he did it for a reason, and it has nothing do to with Paul quoting
any sort of Septuagint (either a B.C. one or an A.D. one) or making any sort of a “free
quote”. Paul knew exactly what he was doing here. The Old Testament saint had to
live by his own faith. No faith was imparted to him. His faith depended upon his
devotion to the Law of Moses, the sacrificial system and the Scriptures. He is walking
by faith under the Law. The New Testament saint has faith imparted to him at salvation
(Galatians 2:20b). It is so very important to notice these differences between the
salvation positions between the Old Testament and New Testament saints, for they
were not identical. The Law of Moses contained 613 precepts. David reduced them to
11 (Psalm 15). Isaiah reduced those to 6, Micah to 3. Isaiah then comes back and
reduces it to 2. Habakkuk and Paul strain the Law down to one point: The just shall live
by (his) faith. This is not "saved by faith" but "life by faith". This is not a salvation verse
but a Christian life verse. But we do notice the emphasis of "living by (your own) faith"
in the Old Testament. Faith in the sacrifices and in the Law. Faith in the messages of
the prophets and the ministry of the priests. God holds man responsible to the amount
of revelation he has to work with. There was no new birth in the Old Testament but
there were the types of the feasts and sacrifices as well as the prophecies of the
Messiah. The Old Testament saint had to put his faith in these things to take care of his
sin problem. As a Jew was faithful to these revelations, his faith increased in
proportion, hence he built up his own faith by his devotion and belief.
We do not live or walk by sight, for our sight is limited and our eyes may deceive
us. Walking by sight is walking by human understanding and experience, both of which
are greatly limited and unreliable. But when we are walking by faith, we are walking by
God’s sight and experience, both of which are infinite, perfect, and totally reliable.
52
17f The righteousness of God is revealed by faith, as the just shall live by faith and not
by works. Man, who has no righteousness in himself, usually tries to either generate
righteousness through good works, usually by keeping the Law or by being moral, or he
tries to manifest his righteousness publicly by good works, usually religious. But man
has no righteousness (Isaiah 64:6) except that which is imputed to him by Christ at
salvation.
17g It is interesting that the word “faith” only occurs twice in the Old Testament:
1. Deuteronomy 32:20 And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what
their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith.
2. Habakkuk 2:4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the
just shall live by his faith.
That is a surprising thing to realize as I’m sure that most Christians assumed that
“faith” was used many more times than that! Faith in the Old Testament and under the
law was not as important as it is in the New Testament, seeing that “faith” is used 229
times in the New Testament. Old Testament salvation did require faith and belief, but
there was an element of works involved, with the Mosaic Law, the sacrifices, attendance
at the three annual feasts, living by your faith, etc.
17h Three epistles in the New Testament quote Habakkuk 2:4, “The just shall live by
his faith.”
Romans 1:17 emphasizes the just;
Hebrews 10:38 emphasizes shall live;
Galatians 3:11 emphasizes by faith.
In Romans, the emphasis is upon the fact that man apart from the Law is justified before
God. In Galatians, Paul is defending the gospel from those who would add law to
justification by faith. Faith plus law was the thrust of Judaism; Faith plus nothing was the
answer of Paul.
****************************************************************************************************
1:18a-b For the wrath of Godc is revealedd-present passive from heaven against all
ungodlinesse and unrighteousnessf of men,g who holdh-present participle the truth in
unrighteousness;f
18a The Coverdale brings some of verse 17 into verse 18.
18b Verses 18-32 is a summary of human failure before God. This failure started in
Genesis 3 and has accelerated and grown progressively worse until it will culminate
under the Antichrist in the tribulation period.
18c “wrath of God” God does punish sin and He does get angry at sin, at unbelief
(Mark 3:5) and at error (John 2 at the cleansing of the temple). We immediately have to
reject any liberal/modernist notion of God that tries to paint Him as some smiling
grandfather figure who supposedly loves everyone so much that He would overlook all
their sins and never would so much as frown at anyone. Unfortunately, the wrath of
53
God is seldom preached or presented in evangelism. People always want to hear about
the love of God but few want to deal with the idea that God gets angry. Men seem to
have the idea that God has no right to get mad about anything. But He is angry at the
Gentile world powers, for the Jews concerning their rejection of His Son, and with man
for his sin and rebellion. As sure as there is a heaven, there must be a hell. The
doctrines of hell and judgment must be preached more often and the sinner must be
confronted with these truths as we witness to him. It is not so much that “God loves you
and He has a wonderful plan for your life” as it is “Your sins have separated you from
your God and unless you repent and believe the gospel, God will judge you for your
sins.” That might cut down on your results evangelistically, but you will give a more
Biblical presentation of the gospel.
18d “revealed” The unsaved can see the wrath of God manifested against them, but
they try their best to ignore it (by living in sin and pleasure to drive out any thoughts of
future judgment and condemnation), explain it away (trying to employ philosophy or
“science falsely so-called) or profess some type of bravery against it (usually by some
form of atheism in boldly declaring there is no God). But all of these defensive measure
will prove vain in the day of the wrath of God and in the day of their judgment.
18e “ungodliness” Strong’s #763 asebia asebeia; impiety, wickedness, want of
reverence toward God.
18f “unrighteousness” Strong’s #93 adikia adikia; (legal) injustice; wrongfulness (of
character, life or act), wrongdoing. Used in a Hebrew, not in a Greek sense, and
extending to every neglect of duty towards our neighbor.
18g “We do not know all the reasons and must not pretend to know them, but we do
know this, that at the time our Savior died, sin among mankind in general had reached a
climax. There never was a more debauched age. It is impossible to read the first
chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, and to understand its testimony, without feeling
sick at the depravity it records. It is such a desperate and altogether truthful description
of the infamous vices into which men had fallen in those days, that we feel that they
must have gone, in fact, beyond all that we could suppose that the vilest imagination
could have fabled! Indeed, so far as our modern time is concerned, the annals of crime
are silent as to such atrocities. And for the most of us, it surpasses our belief that
licentiousness should ever have grown so extravagant in committing willful violations of
nature and indulging a propensity to revel in loathsome folly and unnecessary vice.
“Their own satirists said that there was no new vice that could be invented. Any
person who has passed through Naples by Herculaneum and Pompeii, and seen the
memorials of the state of society in which those cities existed, will almost rue the day in
which he ever saw what he did—for there is no morgue that is so foul as was the
common life of the Romans of that age. And, in all probability, the Romans were as
good as any other nation then existing upon earth. Their very virtue was but painted
vice! What little of virtue had existed among mankind before was gone. Socrates and
Solon, so much vaunted everywhere, were in the habit of practicing vices which I dare
54
not mention in any modest assembly. The very leaders of society would have done,
openly, things which we should now be committed to prison for mentioning—which it is
not lawful to think!
“Society was rotten through and through. It was a stench and offensive to the
utmost by its corruption. But it was then, when man had got to his worst, that on the
bloody tree Christ, Himself, was lifted up to be a standard of virtue— to be a bronze
serpent for the cure of the multitudes of mankind who everywhere were dying of the
serpent bites! Christ came at a time when the wisdom of man had got to a great height
and, whenever it does get to a great height, man becomes an extraordinary fool! The
various masters of philosophy were then going up and down the earth seeking to dazzle
men with the brightness of their teaching. But their science was absurdity and their
morals were a systematized immorality. Putting the whole of it together, whatever was
true in what they taught, our most common Sunday school child understands. But the
bulk of it was altogether foolishness, couched in paradoxical terms to make it look like
wisdom.
“‘The world by wisdom knew not God.’ But, surely, man had a religion at that
time! He had, but man’s religion—well, the less we say about the religion which existed
when Christ came into the world the better. One of their own poets, speaking of the
Egyptians, ridiculed them by saying, “O happy people, who grow your gods in your own
kitchen garden!”—for they worshipped leeks and onions! These well- trained and
tutored people embalmed the ibis and the cat, and made these objects of religious
reverence. If you had stepped into the temple of Isis anywhere, you would soon have
discovered emblems of the utmost obscenity. And the holy rites of the common religion
of the period—the holy rites, I say—done in honor of God were acts of flagrant sin! The
temples were abominable and the priests were abominable beyond description. And
where the best part of man, his very religion, had become so foul, what could we expect
of his ordinary life?
“To give a boy a Lempriere’s Dictionary, as schoolmasters do, is, I believe, to
debauch that boy’s mind, though the most of its execrable records concern the religion
of the period of which I am now speaking. If such were the religion of the time, O God,
what must its irreligion have been? But was there not a true religion in the world,
somewhere? Yes, there was and it was in Judea. But those who inherited the canon of
Divine Revelation, what manner of men were they? Not one bit better than the heathen,
for they were gross hypocrites! Tradition had made void the Law of God. Ritualism had
taken the place of spiritual worship (Charles Spurgeon, “The Sad Plight and the Sure
Relief” in Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, volume 20, sermon 1184).”
18h Most modern versions have “suppress” or “hold down”. The ESV does this but it is
no real improvement. The pre-King James translations all have “withhold”. The
General though here is “possessing” or “holding fast”.
****************************************************************************************************
55
7. Condemnation of Gentile Sin 1:19-32
1:19 Because that which may be known of God ispresent manifest in them; for God
hath shewedaorist it unto them.a-b
19a God has manifested Himself to all men, so they are without excuse and thus have
no defense or excuse. No man can claim ignorance to the law of God. Every man,
unless an idiot, knows there is a God and has a basic understanding of what sin is. The
man will then be held responsible to what he does with that inward witness of his
conscience. God manifests Himself even in the construction and operation of the human
body. Man's own body is a constant witness to the glory of God. Even the invisible
things of God are clearly seen by the witness of creation (see Psalm 19). If a man will
simply open his eyes and take an honest look around or at himself that will answer his
question "Is there a God?" The next question is "What is my relation to Him? Am I
acceptable to Him as I am now?" Conscience will condemn him as being sinful and
thus unacceptable to God. If a man will accept that, then God will lead him to more
revelation as to what to do about the sin problem. Creation and conscience will not tell
a man how to get saved for neither has been ordained to preach the Gospel. But they
will get the man started on the right track to salvation.
19b "God hath shewed it..." Their problem was not ignorance, but rather a willful
rejection of this divine witness. It is much the same way today, as men refuse to
acknowledge what is clearly before their eyes in terms of divine design of creation and
the evidence of the existence of God. Since God had showed these things clearly to all
men, they are without excuse.
****************************************************************************************************
1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly
seen,a-b-present passive being understoodpresent passive participle by the things that are made,
even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they areinfinitive without excuse.c
20a This is a paradox but how true. We cannot see God, yet it is evident He is there.
Law, morality, truth, right and wrong are all “invisible” concepts yet all can understand
them. Even the sinner can have some knowledge of these invisible things, at least
enough to get saved.
20b “clearly seen” Strong’s #2529 kayoraw kathoraô; from kata kata (Strong’s
#2596) according to, also an intensifier; and ‘ oraw horaô (Strong’s #3708) to see; to
look down, see from above, view from on high, to see thoroughly, perceive clearly,
understand. Used only here.
20c "without excuse" is the key phrase here. The King James and Geneva Bible
present this differently. The King James states the fact that the Gentiles are “without
excuse” as an absolute fact- they are without excuse in an absolute sense. The
Geneva Bible presents it in a more subjunctive tense, that they should be without
56
excuse, but they may not be necessarily without excuse right now. The King James
rendering is more accurate.
****************************************************************************************************
1:21a Because that, when they knewaorist participle God, they glorifiedaorist him not as
God,b neither were thankful;aorist but became vainc-aorist passive in their imaginations,d
and their foolish hearte-f-g was darkened.aorist passive
21a Paul now sets out to prove that the entire world is sinful and guilty before God, that
there is none righteous and that all men need a savior, regardless of nationality. Paul
deals with the Gentiles in Romans 1 and the Jews in Romans 2. By the time we get to
Romans 3, we are in pretty bad shape! Paul's arguments for universal depravity are so
masterful and skillful that even secular lawyers studying law will consider Paul's
arguments, not for their theological merits but for his use of logic to argue his case.
Remember the background of Paul's writing of this passage. If he wrote Romans from
Corinth, which he probably did, he was eyewitnesses to the worst debauchery and
vileness available to human eyes in the Roman Empire in that day. No doubt the low
morality of Corinth influenced the severity in which he condemned Gentile sin.
Paul lists the sins of the Gentiles. They knew God but glorified Him not as God
in willful rejection. They had their own gods, created by their own fertile imaginations,
and had no real need for the true God, the God of Israel. They were unthankful to God,
giving their thanks for life and health to their false deities instead. They became vain in
their imaginations. They never thought a profitable spiritual thought. Idolatry does not
stimulate the intellect but rather dulls it. Their foolish heart was darkened because they
rejected the Light of the World. Israel had the light which they were supposed to shine
unto the Gentiles. It is true that Israel was less that faithful in their discharge of their
duties as witness to the Gentiles but the
Gentiles are also to be blamed. When Israel was faithful, they rejected the witness as a
whole. Only a remnant of Gentiles responded, like Rahab, Ruth and Uriah.
This is true evolution, from verses 21-23, but not as it is presented by the Church
of Darwin and his disciples. They imagine that over time, man is getting better and
better and is moving upward in all areas, even in direct violation of the various laws of
thermodynamics. But Paul knew better. Man’s “evolution” is really devolution, a
downward spiral and not an upward progress. Man started out innocent in the Garden
and since the Fall, has been plunging deeper into sins and depravity. Following is the
result of what millennia of sin and rebellion has wrought in man. There is nothing for
man to brag about here and even the most ardent secular humanist or devotee of
Darwinian evolution would have a hard time promoting the human condition as Paul
describes it as being a good thing or something to take pride in. Left to himself, man
will always fall and it is impossible for him to advance or progress without the Gospel
and the Holy Spirit.
21b The heathen are not judged according to the knowledge they did not have, but
according to the knowledge they did have and what they did with it.
57
21c “became vain” Strong’s #3154 mataiow mataioô; become vain. Used only here.
21d “This hath chief respect to the conception and opinions that the heathen framed to
themselves of the Divine Being. For though some denied there was a God, and others
doubted thereof, yet generally it was acknowledged by them; yea, some owned a
multiplicity of gods, and those either corporeal or incorporeal. Others acknowledged but
one God, as Plato, Aristotle, &c.; but then they either denied his providence, as the
Peripatetics, or tied him to second or inferior causes, as the Stoics. This is the vanity
which the apostle here speaketh of (Matthew Poole).”
21e “foolish heart” The heart if every unsaved man is foolish because it is separated
from the truth of God and does not have the ability in and of itself to understand such
truths. No matter the IQ of the person or how many earned degrees he may have, he is
a fool is he is apart from God. He had rejected God and has practiced some form of
atheism (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). How many different forms does this sin take! The Bible
rejecter, the man who refuses the free offer of salvation, the unsaved scientist and
philosopher, the hedonist, the idolater, the religious man, the moral man- all apart from
the truth of God are fools who suffer from a darkened heart!
21f "foolish heart was darkened" When they rejected God, He literally turned off the
lights of their intellect. Rejection of God ‘ no light and no understanding. Now they
grope around in the darkness of human wisdom that has been divorced from divine
revelation, and what a great darkness that is. God will only darken (or turn off the lights
of revelation and illumination) a foolish heart that has rejected God and set itself against
God. God will not do this to a good heart.
This verb is in the passive and the King James correctly renders it, but the
Geneva Bible translates it more as an active voice, as the heart being “full of darkness”.
21g "heart" The mind, emotions, intellect, seat of personality, the soul of man. The
heart of man is really what he is.
****************************************************************************************************
1:22 Professingpresent participle themselves to beinfinitive wise,a they became fools,b-aorist
passive
22a “wise” To be cultured, skilled, educated, learned in letters. They may very well
be, in a human sense, but as Bob Jones Sr. used to say “Education without salvation is
damnation”. Often, the more education a sinner has, the less likely he is to be saved
and the greater fool he is likely to become. For examples of this, visit your nearest state
university. I saw this first hand during the years I preached on the street at the
University of Delaware. Nowhere is there such a collection of “wise fools” than at an
“institution of higher learning”. And the younger they are (freshmen especially), the
worse it is.
This is also the case with most college professors, especially those in some
Christian colleges and universities. Most of the apostasy in churches starts in the
58
classrooms and is taught to the ministerial students who then take it into the churches
they pastor. That apostasy is then preached to the congregation and the process is
then complete. Most church members don’t have the background or education to
withstand the error they hear from the pulpit, so most of them will simply go along with
what they are being taught. This is where the attacks on the King James Bible and its
associated Greek texts and translations originate. It does not start with the laborer or
the truck driver or the housewife on the church bench, but from the “professor” with a
doctorate in some college classroom attacking the King James Bible in their ignorance
and apostasy, and that will get passed on to their students. In an attempt to appear
scholarly and to avoid any criticism, the young preachers will swallow what they were
taught without any critical examination. They will think “my teachers were all godly men
who know more than I do, so who am I to oppose them or to disagree with them?” But
what they need to realize is that “great men are not always wise” (Job 32:9) and there is
an organized apostasy in most “Christian” schools. Education, scholarship and
“godliness” can all be sanctified, and acceptable, forms of idolatry that has its origins in
intellectual pride. The teachers that I always respected the most in my Bible college
and seminary days were those men who were humble, and who were not afraid to admit
that might be wrong about something or that they made a mistake. They did not sit in
judgment on the Scriptures. Many men who have an earned doctorate imagine
themselves to be smart enough to sit in judgment on Moses, David and Paul. Those
with honorary doctorates (“synthetic sheepskins”) are usually even worse! The cure for
this mess is in 2 Corinthians 10:5 “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that
exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to
the obedience of Christ”.
22b “fools” This is the Greek word moraino, from where we get our word "moron".
Wise fools! Foolish wise men! They are self-made morons who imagined themselves
so enlightened. Oh, they waste no opportunity to tell you how smart they are and how
foolish you (the Christian) is! They have degrees by the yard, hold to the doctrines
preached by the Church of Darwin, are practicing atheists and they declare themselves
so intelligent. Yet they don’t where they came from, why they are here or where they
are going when they die! They mock the Christian who has all these answers, while
foolishly comforting themselves on how intelligent they are! Such madness! Yet it
passes for education and culture in worldly circles. The sinners are foolish because
they really dwelt in spiritual darkness. This verse is an oxymoron- wise men who are so
educated that they educated themselves straight into foolishness since their "education"
was divorced from the wisdom of God and from the Bible. Ignorant men are usually the
first, and loudest, to boast of their own wisdom, while truly educated men keep silence
and refrain of speaking of their own glory.
****************************************************************************************************
1:23a And changedb-aorist the glory of the uncorruptible God into an imagec made
like to corruptible man,d and to birds,e and fourfooted beasts,f and creeping
things.g-h-i-j
59
23a Men want to worship something they can see. They need a “tangible” religion since
visible gods are easier to control and manipulate than invisible ones. Since God is
invisible, they reject Him and they turn to that which is visible: animals and themselves.
It is interesting Paul does not include the worship of stellar objects in his discussion,
such as sun-worship, moon-worship or astrology. They corrupted the glory of the
incorruptible God by making idols out of insects, birds and beasts. The Greeks
worshiped man. The greater the resemblance to man, the greater the error, which
means humanism is the most hellish doctrine of all. It is self-worship carried to the
extreme. The more cultured the society, the grosser the error. The Assyrians worshiped
birds. The Egyptians worshiped beasts (Psalm 106:20- Jews did it too! Exodus 32:4).
He who makes a god of nature makes a beast of himself. Pagans worshiped creeping
things (snakes). "Creeping things" is the Greek word "herpeton", meaning a reptile,
translated "serpent" in James 3:7. That could ultimately translate into Satan worship as
one of his symbols is that of a serpent! Devil worship was all too common among these
Gentiles.
23b “changed” Strong’s #236 allassw allassô; to change, to exchange one thing for
another, to transform. This has the idea that they exchanged the truth for a lie, a bad
for a good. It is not that they tried to worship both the Creator and the creature, but
exchanged the worship of God for something else, which, in this case, was the worship
of beasts and creeping things. The King James is the only traditional version that uses
“changed” as the others use “turned”. The ESV uses “exchanged”.
23c “image” This involves a clear violation of the Second Commandment in Exodus
20:4 reads. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any carved (graven) image, or any likeness
of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water
under the earth.” Of course, this meant nothing to them. Many were ignorant of such a
commandment but even if they had known of it, such knowledge wouldn’t have delayed
them in the least.
23d "corruptible man" Compare the incorruptible glory of God to the corruptible "glory"
of man. All the glory of man is nothing more than corruption! How that will irritate the
humanists, who worship this corrupted being! And what has corrupted man? His sin,
which he refuses to confess or to forsake.
23e Birds were worshipped in Egypt.
23f He who makes a beast to be his god soon becomes a beast himself.
23g Note the descending scale of objects of Gentile worship: man-birds-four footed
beasts-creeping things (snakes). The Greeks emphasized the human form in their gods
while the Egyptians emphasized animal forms, including mixed human-animal gods.
Serpent worship was common in Babylon and Egypt.
60
Paul cites Psalm 106:20 in this verse: "Thus they changed their glory into the
similitude of an ox that eateth grass. Worshiping a cow! Yet Hindus practically do this.
Their gods are beasts. Is it any wonder these worshippers are also beasts, in
their actions, attitudes and lifestyles? You are what you worship and you will pattern
your life after the god you serve. Beasts worship beasts. Men fitted for heaven worship
the God of glory.
23h The worship of serpents was also popular in many pagan cultures.
23i You can also add the idea of Muslims practically worshipping a black rock in Mecca
and Catholics and the Orthodox in their veneration (just one step below worship at best)
of the saints, images, “holy relics” and icons.
23j Also see Psalm 106:20 and Ezekiel 8:10,11 (for the sins of even the Jews in this
regard).
****************************************************************************************************
1:24 Wherefore God also gave them upa-b-c-aorist to uncleannessd through the lusts
of their own hearts, to dishonore-f-present middle/passive infinitive their own bodies between
themselves: g
24a "gave them up" When a nation gives up on God, God gives up on them and turns
them over to the most hideous and destructive enemy of them all: themselves.
Strong’s #3860 paradidwmi paradidômi; from para para (Strong’s #3844) of,
with, and didwmi didômi (Strong’s #1325) give; to give into the hands, to give over into
(one’s) power or use, to deliver to one something to keep, use, take care of, manage, to
deliver up one to custody, to be judged, condemned, punished, scourged, tormented,
put to death, to deliver up treacherously, by betrayal to cause one to be taken, to deliver
one to be taught, moulded, to commit, to commend, to deliver verbally, to deliver by
narrating, to report, to permit allow, when the fruit will allow that is when its ripeness
permits, gives itself up, presents itself
24b "gave them up" Homosexual activists and apologists mistakenly maintain that
their homosexuality is something that they cannot control and something they cannot
change. To a degree, they are right, but it is not due to genetics. Rather, God allowed
them to degenerate into homosexuals as a judgment for their rejecting the truth and
revelation of God. Since their sodomy is a result of this judgment (which they brought
on themselves in the first place because of their sin), it is partially true that they can’t
help the way they are, but then again, they are personally and individually responsible
for causing God to pronounce such a judgment upon them. Thus, homosexuality is sent
as a judgment upon a condemned people.
24c “God gave them up” This is repeated in 1:26 and 1:28, where Paul changed it
slightly to “God gave them over”. Three times God gave these sinners either up or
over to their own hearts. They wanted sin so God turned them over to it, in full
61
measure. God gave them over to their own ways and they will drink that cup to the
dregs and suffer the resulting hangover forever in the lake of fire as a result. The moral
is be careful what you wish for or desire, because God may just give it to you. And if He
does, can you handle it? And what a terrible judgment this is, to be abandoned by God,
with no hope of reconciliation, and the judgment that awaits as a result!
God “gave them up” three times. He “gave up” on their bodies (1:24), their souls
(1:26) and their spirits (1:28). This is a total rejection of the total sinner.
24d “uncleanness” Strong’s #167 akayarsia akatharsia; impurity, filth, impurity
arising from indulged lusts. There is a sexual connotation to the word. This attitude
toward sexual purity comes as a result of the rejection of God by the sinner and the
resulting “giving up” of that sinner by God to his lusts and downward depravity.
24e “dishonor” Strong’s #818 atimazw atimazô, to dishonor, insult, treat with
contempt. We see much dishonoring of the body today. Those with tattoos or body
piercings dishonor their body. Those who have their bodies cremated at death dishonor
their bodies. Those who dress in immodest apparel dishonor the body. And those who
engage in fornication or sodomy greatly dishonor their bodies. These people commit
sexual sins against their own bodies because in reality, they hate themselves and live a
life of self-destruction. No one who loved their bodies would deliberately engage in any
activity that would lead to its destruction. The same could be said for their attitude
regarding their souls.
24f The other traditional translations use “defile”. The King James and the ESV use
“dishonor.”
24g "to dishonor their own bodies between themselves" Homosexuality, a crime
against nature which involves dishonoring the body and the natural, God-ordained
sexual process and practice. The Geneva Bible is a bit stronger with “defile”. But we
must not limit this to homosexuality. Any perverted sexual practices are also
considered here. We have seen a literal explosion of sexual sins in our day and it will
only grow deeper and worse as we continue further into the age.
What the Bible says about sodomy/homosexuality:
1. It is an abomination- Leviticus.18:22
2. It bore the death penalty under the law- Leviticus 20:13
3. It defiles the land- Leviticus 18:25
4. It is the product of a reprobate mind- Romans 1:26-28
5. It is worthy of the judgment of eternal fire- Jude 7
6. It is not an unpardonable sin and it can be forgiven- (1 Corinthians 6:9-11.
****************************************************************************************************
1:25 Who changeda-aorist the truth of God into a lie,b and worshippedc-aorist middle and
servedd-e the creaturef more than the Creator,g-aorist participle who ispresent blessed for
ever. Amen.h
62
25a "changed" They exchanged (Greek- metaallassô, "exchange") the truth for a lie.
They had the truth, didn't like it, and traded it for something they did like, could relate to,
and, most importantly, could control and that was not threatening to them. The idea then
is that they originally had the truth, didn’t like it, so they traded it in for a truth that was
better suited to them.
"Changed" is Strong's #3337 metallassw metallassô; to exchange, a change
of place or condition, to convert from one stage to another. "Meta" denoting change of
place or condition, and "allasso" to change. This is a different word than what is used in
1:23, which is Strong's #236 allassw allassô, to change, to exchange one thing for
another, to transform.
Changing the truth of God into a lie is what happens when Gentiles exchange the
truth of God for a lie. The result is a religious mythology.
This changing of truth is also very apparent in modern English versions, which
make as many as 36,000 changes from the truth of the preserved text of our King
James Bible into the lie of the modern versions.
25b They also think the truth of God is a lie and they have absolutely no respect for the
Bible on any level.
25c "worshipped" Strong's #4573 sebazomai sebazomai, to fear, be afraid, to honor
religiously, to worship. Used only here and is rarely used outside New Testament
Greek. Paul is not using the "standard" word for worship, which is Strong's # 4352
proskunew proskuneô. Paul wants to keep a sharp distinction between the true worship
of God and the false "worship" of idols so he uses two different Greek words for
"worship".
25d “worshipped and served” These verbs are tied together, for you cannot worship
something without serving it, and service is a form of worship.
25e “served” Strong’s #3000 latreuw latreuô; from latris (a hired menial); to serve for
hire, to serve, minister to, either to the gods or men and used alike of slaves and
freemen, to render religious service or homage, to worship, to perform sacred services,
to offer gifts, to worship God in the observance of the rites instituted for his worship, of
priests, to officiate, to discharge the sacred office, translated "worship" in Acts 7:42,
Philippians 3:3 and Hebrews 10:2. This sort of service is actually a form of worship.
This is not to serve as a slave, but to serve out of love and devotion. Thus, Christians
are not slaves but servants, as we serve out of love, not our of duty.
25f “There appear to me to have been four sources of idolatry: first, an ineffaceable
consciousness of God; deified ancestors; the stars; and the principle of generation.
These were interwoven, the last giving rise to corruption inconceivable, the consecration
of degrading lusts. The gods, as popularly known, were deified passions, as Venus,
63
Mars, etc., and the powers of nature. Behind all these was always the Unknown God
(John N. Darby, Exposition of Romans, Collected Works, 26:116,117).”
25g "served the creature more than the Creator" In so doing, they ended up
worshiping and serving the creature more than the Creator. This is humanism at it end.
For this, God gave them up to vile affections and did nothing to try to restrain them in
their sin. If this is what they want, let them have it!
25h "Who is blessed forever. Amen" is a carryover from Paul's Pharisee days. This
is a Jewish benediction. Whenever the Jewish teachers made mention of God, they
supplement it with terms like "Holy One" or "the Blessed One". It was a custom which
passed over from the synagogues into the Christian assemblies, that when he who had
read or disclosed had offered up a solemn prayer to God, the others in the audience
responded "amen" and thus made the substance of what was uttered their own.
****************************************************************************************************
1:26 For this cause God gave them upa-aorist unto vile819-b affections:c for even their
womend did changeaorist the natural use into that which is against nature:e-f
****************************************************************************************************
26a “God gave them up” Repeated in 1:24 and 1:28, where Paul changed it slightly to
“God gave them over”. Three times God gave these sinners either up or over to their
own hearts.
Strong’s #3860 paradidwmi paradidômi; from para para (Strong’s #3844) of,
with, and didwmi didômi (Strong’s #1325) give; to give into the hands, to give over into
(one’s) power or use, to deliver to one something to keep, use, take care of, manage, to
deliver up one to custody, to be judged, condemned, punished, scourged, tormented,
put to death, to deliver up treacherously, by betrayal to cause one to be taken, to deliver
one to be taught, moulded, to commit, to commend, to deliver verbally, to deliver by
narrating, to report, to permit allow, when the fruit will allow that is when its ripeness
permits, gives itself up, presents itself
26b Strong’s #819 atimia atimia; dishonor, ignominy, disgrace
26c The Tyndale, Coverdale and Bishops use “shameful lusts”. The Geneva shares
the “vile affections” with the King James.
26d "women" Strong's #2338 yhluv thêlus, female. Not even the more polite word
"women". Paul does not think much of these "females" in their sin, so he uses the more
"impolite" form. It would be like calling a whore a "female" instead of a "woman" or a
"lady". These women have fallen from the high and lofty pedestal that God and the
Bible have placed them on (as the Queen of the Home, the Glory and Crown to her
husband and that dear title “mother”- see Proverbs 31) and have allowed themselves to
be dragged down to the common level of men. Who can find a true woman, a lady,
these days? Most of these unsaved women are drinking in bars, getting tattoos,
64
swearing like sailors, are “working a career” instead of raising their children and running
their homes and are participating in the same sexual debauchery as the men are. And
then they imagine themselves to be so advanced and “liberated” while they are really in
the deepest depths of Satanic slavery!
26e "their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:"
Their women became lesbians and pagan temple-prostitutes. One sign of God's
judgment on a nation is when the women abandon their modesty, chastity and
submission and begin to "demand their rights" and "strut their stuff". Feminism is from
the pit of hell and is a symptom of spiritual cancer within a society. Not only that, but
female homosexuality, or lesbianism, is also a result of divine judgment upon a nation
that has rejected God.
26f "against nature" A clear statement that homosexuality (whether it be male or
female) is against nature, which is one reason why God's people oppose it so strongly.
God designed us physically for heterosexual relations, which is obvious. We also notice
that God made a woman for Adam, not another man. Thus, there is no possible way
sodomy can be justified, either Biblically or by natural law.
****************************************************************************************************
1:27 And likewise also the men,a leavingb-aorist participle the natural use of the woman,c
burnedaorist passive in their lustd one toward another;e mena with mena workingf-present
middle/passive participle
that which is unseemly,g and receivingpresent participle in themselves
that recompenceh of their error which was meet.i-j-k-imperfect
27a "men" Strong's #730 arrhn aesên, male. Used in a similar sense as #2338 yhluv
regarding the women. The Greek word for "homosexual" (Strong's #733 arsenokoithv
arsenokoitês) is derived from this.
27b The left the natural use of the woman, which means that at one time, they were
“there”, normal in their sexuality. But through their deepening of sin and their continuing
rejection of God, they removed themselves from this “position” and departed unto
sodomy. This shows that no one is born a homosexual. It is learned behavior, which
often comes as a judgment from God to the sinner who has rejected His grace and
mercy.
27c “natural use of the woman” This is given in a sexual sense, referring to the
natural relations between a man and a woman.
27d "lust" Strong's # 3715 orexiv orexis; excitement of the mind, longing after, desire,
craving, lust, appetite, used both in good and bad senses. A harpax legomena. Notice
the passive tense of the verb here, showing that something made them burn in their
lusts toward each other and it was not caused by themselves. Rather, the sin was
imposed on them by another, namely, in this context, the judgment of God for their
65
abandonment of Him. In later classical Greek, it is the most general term for every kind
of desire, as the appetite for food.
27e "burned in their lust one toward another" Men left that natural use of the women
and became homosexuals. They burned in their lust toward each other. They could
have no rest until they sinned against the own bodies. The devil is a cruel taskmaster
for he will give you no rest until you have sinned to your daily quota! They worked that
which was unseemly toward each other. They then received the just recompense of
reward for their error, which includes sexually-transmitted disease and AIDS.
Homosexuality is always the bottom rung of a nation before God judges it. Thus,
“burned” is a very graphic, and correct, term to use, as they were being consumed by
the very lusts that enslaved them.
27f Working as a fast-growing and aggressive cancer through their bodies, except this
also worked through their soul and spirit as well.
27g “unseemly” Strong’s #808 aschmosunh aschêmosunê; unseemliness, an
unseemly deed, of a woman’s genitals. of one’s nakedness. There is nothing beyond
their shame for they cannot blush. The depths of their depravity will only increase as
we draw closer to the end of the age as they seek new depths of sin and experiment
with all manner of filthiness. Used only here and in Revelation 16:15.
27h “recompence” Strong’s #489 antimisyia antimisthia; from a compound of anti
anti (Strong’s #473) against; and misyov misthos (Strong’s #3408) wages paid for work;
a reward given in compensation, requital, recompence. Used only here and in 2
Corinthians 6:13.
27i "their error which was meet" Homosexuality was accepted in Roman society, even
highly regarded (cited by Plato in Symposium and Plutarch in Lycurgus) even the
Roman gods practiced it (for example, Zeus' attraction to Ganymede) as well as the
emperors (Nero is a well-known case). Paul seems to draw a link between
homosexuality and Gentile idolatry and religious practices. But Jewish and Christian
communities always opposed homosexuality.
27j "which was meet" or which was due or fitting, which they deserved or had earned.
27k For all of this, sodomy is not an unpardonable sin. God can and has saved
sodomites and has delivered them from their death-style. For an example of this, see 1
Corinthians 6:9-11. Paul says that some of the Corinthian believers were
“effeminate…abusers of themselves with mankind.” They were like that but are not now
because they were washed from their sins and sanctified. Sodomites are saved the
same way drunkards, liars, thieves and good “moral” and religious sinners are.
****************************************************************************************************
66
1:28 And even as they did not likeaorist to retaininfinitive God in their knowledge,a-b-c
God gave them overd-aorist to a reprobatee mind,f to doinfinitive those things which are
not convenient;g-present participle
28a “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge…” I think the
Geneva Bible is more to the point here, as they “did not acknowledge God…”, but both
versions do handle the idea well, the King James Version just phrases it differently to
make their sin more of a mental/intellectual one where the Geneva Bible is more
straightforward.
28b “Wrong thinking results in:
a) Debased human character. Men become unrighteous, wicked, covetous,
malicious, envious and deceitful. The become full of malignity, God haters, despiteful,
proud, without natural affection, implacable and unmerciful.
b) Debased human conduct. Men become guilty of fornication and murder. They
defy parental authority and treat contractual obligations with contempt.
c) Debased human conversation. Men become quarrelsome, whisperers,
backbiters and boasters.
d) Debased human concepts. Men become inventors of evil things and God
says they are without understanding.
e) Debased human companionships. (John Phillips, Exploring Romans, page
33).”
28c These sinners wanted nothing to do with God. They shook their fist into heaven
and cried "God, if you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone!" God agrees and leaves
them alone, until they die. They then drop into the pit and God later remembers them
and judges them at the Great White Throne.
But before this point, God gave them up to a reprobate mind to do those things
that are not convenient. Just read again the account of homosexual practices under
1:27 for an example of the fruit of a reprobate mind. Add to it drunkenness, lusts, drug
use, murder, lying, stealing and a thousand other sins. "Reprobate" is the Greek word
(Strong's #96) adokimov adokimos, meaning "unapproved, rejected, worthless,
castaway". It is translated "castaway" in 1 Corinthians 9:27 and "rejected" in Hebrews
6:8. How vivid a picture- these sinners are abandoned by God, cast away as worthless
flotsam of His creation because of their rejection of Him. A reprobate mind is a rejected
and a worthless mind.
28d “God gave them over” Repeated in 1:24 and 1:26, where Paul changed it slightly
to “God gave them up”. Three times God gave these sinners either up or over to their
own hearts.
Strong’s #3860 paradidwmi paradidômi; from para para (Strong’s #3844) of,
with, and didwmi didômi (Strong’s #1325) give; to give into the hands, to give over into
(one’s) power or use, to deliver to one something to keep, use, take care of, manage, to
deliver up one to custody, to be judged, condemned, punished, scourged, tormented,
put to death, to deliver up treacherously, by betrayal to cause one to be taken, to deliver
67
one to be taught, moulded, to commit, to commend, to deliver verbally, to deliver by
narrating, to report, to permit allow, when the fruit will allow that is when its ripeness
permits, gives itself up, presents itself
28e “reprobate mind” We have the hint that at one point, their minds were not
reprobate until they crossed a certain line with God. They were not born that way but
they were given such a mind in rep judgment as a result of their rejection of God. This
weakens the Calvinist idea that the non-elect are all reprobates from the foundation of
the world. Here, their minds did not become probate until a certain time in their life.
Could they have been reprobate/nonelect without having a reprobate mind? Would they
be reprobate without a reprobate mind? No, we have to reject the Calvinistic idea of
“unconditional reprobation”.
The Tyndale, Coverdale and Bishops’ Bibles use “lewd mind”. The Geneva uses
“reprobate” as does the King James.
“reprobate” Strong’s #96 adokimov adokimos; from a a (Strong’s #1) (as a
negative particle) and dokimov dokimos (Strong’s #1384) approved; not standing the
test, not approved, used of metals and coins, that which does not prove itself such as it
ought, unfit for, unproved, spurious, reprobate. “The word appears four times in the
Authorized Version in the singular and three times in the plural. It is from the Latin
reprobates, from reprobare, ‘to reject’. This was a compound verb based on probare,
‘to test’. To be reprobate is to fail a test, to be rejected, condemned or unapproved. In
the Bible, a reprobate is someone or something that is unapproved and therefore
rejected. The word later came to be applied to anyone who was depraved, worthless or
otherwise worthy of condemnation (Laurence Vance, Archaic Words and the Authorized
Version, page 288)”
“The word “reprobate” is to “re” “probate”—to put on probation again. A reprobate
mind is a mind that has been tested by God and has failed that test at least twice. The
mind has broken its probation.Peter Ruckman, Romans).”
The word “reprobate’ does not mean “lost with no chance of salvation” or “elected
to hell”. It means “something that is worthless or rejected”. The Calvinist has to
mistranslate the word in order to support their idea of reprobation unto condemnation.
28f They reprobated God, God reprobated them. God treated them they same way
they treated God.
28g “not convenient” They commit sins that are not right, not profitable, not good. Are
not all sins like this? There are no good sins, so all sins must fall into this category.
****************************************************************************************************
1:29a Being filled withb-perfect passive participle all unrighteousness,c fornication,d
wickedness,e covetousness,f maliciousness;g full of envy,h murder,i debate,j
deceit,k malignity;l whisperers,m
29a In verses 29-31, Paul lifts the lid off the mouth of hell and grants us a horrifying
look. Of course, we need not look into the pit to witness this. We need only to go to our
68
local malls or parks and watch the people as they go by, or turn on our televisions and
radios to witness the horrible results of rejecting God.
29b "being filled with" Notice the perfect tense. This condition of being "given over to
a reprobate mind" and these resulting sins is a completed and finished act that will not
be reversed. Being so "given over" would be the equivalent of the "unpardonable sin" as
no remedy is given for this condition.
29c Strong’s #93 adikia adikia; (legal) injustice; wrongfulness (of character, life or act),
wrongdoing. Used in a Hebrew, not in a Greek sense, and extending to every neglect of
duty towards our neighbor. This is the opposite of justice, which the Greeks defined as
“giving to God and man their due”. The evil man is one who robs God and man of his
rights, while at the same time, insisting upon his rights.
29d Strong’s #4202 porneia porneia; harlotry (including adultery and incest); idolatry,
illicit sexual intercourse. We get our word "pornographic", meaning material designed to
be sexually arousing. The word can refer to a physical or spiritual act. Physical adultery
goes against the marriage bond. Spiritual adultery involves doctrinal or practical
unfaithfulness to Christ.
This word is missing in modern versions. We dare not overlook it for this is a
master sin of our sex-soaked generation, where the body and things pertaining to the
body are worshipped and the spirit is despised. When “fornication” does appear in
modern versions, it is usually translated by something like “sexuality”. But the Holy
Spirit was very careful in choosing the word “fornication” instead of something like
“sexuality”, If you saw or heard “sexuality”, it would created sexual thoughts, leading
possibly to sexual sins. The word “fornication” carries no such danger.
29e Strong’s # Strong’s #4189 ponhria ponêria; depravity, iniquity, wickedness, malice,
evil purposes and desires
29f Strong’s #4124 pleonexia pleonexia; avarice, fraudulency, extortion, greedy desire
to have more. The Greeks called this the “accursed love of having”.
They committed covetousness in chasing the Almighty Dollar and hoarding
houses and lands on earth instead of sending their treasures on ahead to heaven by
investing their wealth into the work of the Gospel. Their motto was "Get all you can and
can all you get (then sit on the can)!" "He who dies with the most toys wins!" Their cry
was “more, more, more!” as they were never satisfied with what they had. Their lust for
material things was infinite and bottomless.
29g Strong’s #2549 kakia kakia; badness, depravity, malignity, trouble, wickedness as
an evil habit of the mind. This is the general word for “badness” and it carries over into
several modern Romance languages, as “kaka”, which can almost be used as a profane
word for excretement.
69
29h Covetousness with hatred and other malicious thoughts thrown in. Their hearts
were filled with envy as an empty vessel would be filled with water.
29i How strikingly the Holy Spirit brings these words, envy, murder, which sound so
alike in the Greek,--phthonou, phonou--into the order and connection which they
constantly sustain in life. (William Newell, Romans Verse-by-Verse).” Jesus would
expand on this sin by including even the thoughts of hatred, not just the physical act
itself, as the act is of murder usually preceded by the thought.
29j They debated and argued ("Just who are you to say that what I do is sin? Who are
you to tell me I'm going to hell? What makes you think my religion is wrong?"). They
loved to argue for the sake of arguing. They will even argue against "Thus saith the
Lord".
29k Strong’s #1388 dolov dolos; craft, deceit, guile, "a bait for fish," and so, to catch
with a bait, to beguile. It is also used of debasing precious metals and watering-down
wines. These people cannot act in a straightforward manner but all their acts are done
with an ulterior motive, which is usually evil.
29l They were filled with "malignity". That's the English word we use to describe an
active cancer. Their sins were literally consuming them, body and soul. The Geneva
Bible uses the phrase “taking all things in the evil part”. The other traditional
translations use “evil conditioned”. It has the idea of taking the worst part in everything
and seeing everything in the worst possible light. It also includes harboring a bad
attitude and a sour spirit.
Strong’s #2550 kakohteia kakoêtheia; from lakos lakos (Strong’s #2556) bad,
evil, and ethos ethos (Strong’s #2239) bad, evil; bad character, mischievousness, ill
nature, everything with an evil connotation, depravity of heart and life. Used only here.
29m Gossips, tattlers. This was a manifestation of their hate (Psalm 41:7). It is the
private, verbal defamation of another, to bring harm and disfavor unto the victim.
Whispering differs from backbiting (1:30) as backbiting is usually done openly while
whispering is a more secret attack.
Strong’s #5588 qiyuristhv psithuristês; a secret slanderer, a whisperer. An
onamonapeia (a word that sounds like its definition). Used only here.
A comparison of the various words used in verse 29, as used in the various English
translations:
King James
unrighteousness
fornication
wickedness
covetousness
maliciousness
full of envy
murder
debate
Tyndale
unrighteousness
fornication
wickedness
covetousness
maliciousness
full of envy
murder
debate
Coverdale
unrighteousness
whoredom
wickedness
covetousness
maliciousness
full of envy
murder
strife
70
Geneva 1599
unrighteousness
fornication
wickedness
covetousness
maliciousness
full of envy
murder
debate
Bishops
unrighteousness
fornication
craftiness
covetousness
maliciousness
full of envy
murder
debate
ESV
unrighteousness
(missing)
evil
covetousness
malice
full of envy
murder
strife
deceit
malignity
deceit
evil conditioned
deceit
evil conditioned
whisperers
whisperers
whisperers
deceit
taking all things
in the evil part
whisperers
deceit
evil conditioned
deceit
maliciousness
whisperers
gossips
****************************************************************************************************
1:30 Backbiters,a haters of God,b despiteful,c proud,d boasters,e inventors of evil
things-f disobedient to parents,g
30a “backbiters” Strong’s #2637 katalalov katalalos; talkative against, a slanderer.
A backbiter is a backstabber, usually employing the dagger of the tongue. Used only
here in the New Testament.
30b “haters of God” They hated God because He stood in the way of their fully
enjoying their sins. God is a constant barrier to their sin natures fully pressing
themselves. This hated of God also extends to the things of God- the Bible, the church,
morality and Christians. Atheists, who claim not to believe in God, fall prey to this sin as
well, as they fight very strongly and protest very loudly against someone they claim
does not exist! Their desire is a world without God, and thus, without any moral
restraints at all.
30c “despiteful” Strong’s #5197 ‘ubristhv hubristês, an insolent man, one who,
uplifted with pride, either heaps insulting language upon others or does them some
shameful act of wrong. Used only here and in 1 Timothy 1:13. We get our word
“hubris” from this. It also describes a very hurtful and vengeful spirit. They enjoy
causing pain and harm in others. It carries the idea of being insolent and disrespectful.
These sinners respect no one, not God, not their fellow man, not even themselves. You
see this today in the lives of sinners, how they actually hate even themselves. They
pierce their bodies, they stain their skin with tattoos, they drink and use drugs and
engage in activities and lifestyles that are self-destructive. They would not only hurt
other people but they also do great damage to themselves as they have no self-respect.
30d “proud” Strong’s #5244 'uperhfanov huperêphanos; appearing above others
(conspicuous), haughty. From 'uper huper (Strong’s #5228) over, above, and phainw
"phainô" (Strong’s #5316) to shine, show. “Theophrastus was a Greek writer who wrote
a series of famous character sketches, as he defined this as ‘a certain contempt for
everyone except oneself’. He picks out the things in everyday life which are signs of his
arrogance. The arrogant man, when he is asked to accept some office, refuses on the
ground that he has not the time to spare from his own business; he never looks at
people on the street unless it pleases him to do so; he invites a man to a meal and then
does not appear himself, but sends his servant to attend to his guest. His whole life is
surrounded with an atmosphere of contempt and he delights to make others feel small
(William Barclay, The Letter to the Romans, The Daily Study Bible, page 36).”
30e They were boasters. This would go right along with their pride listed above. The
work is associated with alcoholic beverages and thus probably refers to their state of
71
mind when drunk. The man's booze makes him boastful. When a man gets drunk, he
often loses his inhibitions and gives exhibitions. A drunkard often comes with a big
mouth to go along with his small mind. It literally means a man who wanders about and
later had the idea of wandering quacks who claimed to have great cures for diseases
and physical conditions. Also see remarks under “whisperers” in 1:29.
Strong’s #213 alazwn alazôn; from ale (vagrancy); braggart, empty pretender, a
boaster. The word is associated with alcoholic beverages and thus probably refers to
their state of mind when drunk. Used only here and in 2 Timothy 3:2.
30f “inventors of evil things” Strong’s #2182 efeurethv epheuretês; from epi epi
(Strong’s #1909) an intensive, and 'euriskw heuriskô (Strong’s #2147) to find a
discoverer; contriver, inventor. Used only here. These are men who are not content
with already established sins. They must seek out and invent new and unique sins.
They take the shovel to human nature and after they have already hit the bottom, keep
digging deeper. Not everyone falls into this category as many of us only follow those
who invent evil things, philosophies, religions, music, literature, etc. Few are original
enough or depraved enough to actually invent these things.
30g They were disobedient to parents. They would not listen to anyone, including their
parents. They rejected everything their parents tried to teach them. They wanted
nothing of their parents God or religion for they proudly imagined themselves to be
smarter than their parents. This involves a violation of the 5th commandment about
honoring your father and your mother (Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16, also see
Proverbs 30:17). This failure, or unwillingness, to hear the teachings and commands of
their parents leads to such disobedience. This also stems from disrespect to parents,
since disobedience flows from disrespect. This involves a violation of the 5th
commandment (Exodus 20:12). The results of failure to keep this commandment is a
shortened life, which explains why so many rock singers die young, since they made
their living preaching such parental disobedience to the kids who listened to their
“music”. Rock music (and other forms, to a lesser degree” have preached this gospel of
parental disobedience since the 1950s and the fruit has been the destruction of the
home and the family unit, which flows into the overall destruction of society. The
Romans set obedience to parents as a very high virtue, so this would be looked upon as
a very serious sin. Once the family bonds have been destroyed, society must, by
necessity, devolve into chaos.
A comparison of the various words used in verse 30, as used in the various English
translations:
King James Tyndale
Coverdale
Geneva
Bishops
ESV
1599
backbiters
backbiters
backbiters
backbiters
backbiters
slanderers
haters of
haters of
despisers of haters of
haters of
haters of
God
God
God
God
God
God
despiteful
doers of
doers of
doers of
despiteful
insolent
wrong
wrong
wrong
72
proud
boasters
Inventors of
evil things
disobedient
to parents
proud
proud
proud
proud
haughty
boasters
boasters
boasters
boasters
boastful
bringers up
bringers up
Inventors of bringers up
Inventors of
of evil things of evil things evil things
of evil things evil
disobedient
disobedient
disobedient
disobedient
disobedient
to father and to their
to parents
to father &
to parents
mother
elders
mother
******************************************************************************
1:31a Without understanding,b covenantbreakers,c without natural affection,d
implacable,e unmerciful:f-g
31a The Geneva Bible has this entire verse included with verse 30.
31b They are stupud brute beasts, without the (spiritual) understanding that God gave
to a monkey. They have rejected God, God’s Son, God’s Word, God’s laws and God’s
ways, and then they congradulate themselves on how logical and reasonable they are!
At the same time they are not able to comprehend how foolish they are.
31c They were covenant-breakers. If they felt like breaking a contract, they did soespecially in their relationship with God. Honor and character meant absolutely nothing.
Strong’s # 802 asunyetov asunthetos; from a a (Strong’s #1) a negative particle,
and a derivative of Strong’s #4934 suntiyhmai suntithem, covenant or agreement ;
covenant breaking, faithless. Used only here in the New Testament.
31d They were without natural affections. Parents had no love for their children,
children hated their parents and siblings, husbands hated wives and vice-versa.
Strong’s #794 astorgov astorgos; from a a (Strong’s #1) without, and storgh
"storgê", family love hard-hearted towards kindred. This is a attitude that is the opposite
of family love.
31e “implacable” is missing in modern versions, including the ESV.
Strong’s #786 aspondov aspondos; from a a (Strong’s #1) without; and spondh
"spondê", libation or drink offering without libation (which usually accompanied a treaty),
truceless. "It is from a French word of the same spelling and it is the opposite of
“placable”, meaning “appeasable.” Therefore, “implacable” means “unappeasable,
irreconcilable or that which cannot be mitigated” (Laurence Vance, Archaic Words and
the Authorized Version, page 190)." No one can please you, no one or nothing is good
enough for you. It also includes a stubborn and inflexible attitude that will not accept
any apology or forgiveness.
31f “unmerciful” also has the idea of being ruthless, without pity or mercy, without any
consideration for others. Strong’s #415 anelehmwn aneleemôn; rom a a (Strong’s #1)
without, and eleemon eleemon (Strong’s #1655) merciful; without mercy. Used only
73
here. Life in Rome was cheap, especially among slaves. Slaves could be put to death
on a whim of their master’s, and the law could do nothing.
31g “Scholars have found it difficult to detect any satisfactory classification in the long
list of offenses included here, which only confirms the fact that sin is irrational in itself
and disorderly in its effects (Everett Harrison, Romans in volume 10 of The Expositor’s
Bible Commentary, page 26).”
A comparison of the various words used in verse 31, as used in the various English
translations:
King James
Tyndale
Coverdale
Geneva 1599 Bishops
ESV
without
without
without
without
without
foolishness
understanding understanding understanding understanding understanding
covenant
covenant
covenant
covenant
covenant
faithless
breakers
breakers
breakers
breakers
breakers
without
unloving
unloving
without
without
heartless
natural
natural
natural
affection
affection
affection
impacable
truce
stubborn
such as can
truce
(missing)
breakers
never be
breakers
appeased
unmerciful
merciless
unmerciful
merciless
unmerciful
ruthless
******************************************************************************
1:32 Who knowingaorist active participle the judgment of God, that they which commitapresent participle
such things arepresent worthy of death,b not only dopresent the same, but
have pleasurepresent in them that dopresent participle them.
32a commit The habitual, life-style practice of these sins. A Christian may stumble into
these sins but he does not stay there, nor is he practicing them as a habit of life, at least
he ought not to be.
32b worthy of death Not so much physical death, like capital punishment (although
many of their sins are capital offenses in the Old Testament) but spiritual death, as
these sins lead the way to hell.
Summary- The Heathen
1. They are not as innocent as you might think (Romans 1).
2. They know right from wrong (Genesis 20:4).
3. They can receive extra-Biblical revelations (Genesis 20:4).
4. God often intervenes and protects them from sinning (Genesis 20:6).
5. If they obey the revelation (conscience) they have, they live. If not, they die
(Genesis 20:3).
6. They are obliged to follow their conscience if that is all they have in the way of
74
revelation. If a missionary comes among them and preaches the gospel they then
become responsible for the missionary's message. If any of them are feebleminded or
insane, they are not held accountable like any of us. If he follows his conscience (a
God-given internal spiritual gyroscope), it will lead them to Calvary. If not, it will
condemn him to hell.
75
76
Romans Chapter 2
In chapter 1, Paul took aim at the non-respectable sinner, the Gentile. In chapter 2, he
levels the gospel gun at the respectable, moral, religious sinner. This would include the
religious Jew. “There were :Moralists, Reformers and Philosophers like Socrates,
Seneca and others. They judged and condemned certain evils. But God declares that
they were not a whit better than the rest. The very things they condemned they were
guilty of themselves (A. C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible, Volume 2, New Testament,
page 16).”
TWELVE GREAT PRINCIPLES OF GOD'S JUDGMENT IN ROMANS 2
Principle of Judgment #1: The moral man is rendered inexcusable before God the
righteous Judge
Principle of Judgment #2: God’s Judgment is according to truth.
Principle of Judgment #3: God’s judgment is inescapable.
Principle of Judgment #4: Men should not run away from God (v.3 -- "escape" is
impossible) but they should run to God (v.4 -- "repentance" is essential).
Principle of Judgment #5: There will be a final day of judgment for the ungodly.
Principle of Judgment #6: God’s Judgment is perfectly righteous.
Principle of Judgment #7: God’s judgment is just -- every man will get exactly what he
deserves.
Principle of Judgment #8: God punishes those who do evil and rewards those who do
good.
Principle of Judgment #9: There is no partiality with God.
Principle of Judgment #10: A Person is judged according to the light which he has.
Principle of Judgment #11: Nothing is hidden or kept secret from the Judge.
Principle of Judgment #12: Jesus Christ will be the final Judge before whom all men
shall stand.
**************************************************************************************************
8. The Impartiality of God 2:1-11
2:1 Therefore thou artpresent inexcusable, O man,a-b whosoever thou art that
judgest:present participle for wherein thou judgestpresent another, thou condemnestpresent
thyself; for thou that judgestpresent participle doestpresent the same things.c
1a No man has any excuse for his sin. He sins because he wants to- it's part of his
nature. He can't help it. He knows better yet willingly continues in his sin and rebellion
against God. Men are quick to condemn the sins of others while overlooking that he is
guilty of the same sins. Jews were famous for doing this with Gentile. Yet man
imagines himself somehow safe from God's judgments. He thinks "I'm not as bad as
most and I'm better than others". But he fails to recognize that he is still not as good as
God.
77
1b Only the Coverdale Bible has this “man” trying to excuse himself. The other
translations render it as a spiritual state that he is in, that he has no excuse for his sins,
not that he is trying to excuse himself.
1c The Jews were all too quick to judge the Gentiles, not considering that the same
judgment they judged with could come back to judge them. The Jews believed
themselves immune to the judgment that
would be leveled at the Gentiles. The Talmud teaches all Jews are righteous and Jews
cannot sin. Thus, the Jew would read Romans 1 and let out a hardy “Amen, Paul! Tell
it like it is about those Gentile dogs!” But Paul then turns right around and says that the
Jews are actually worse sinners than those Gentiles.
Why did Jews think they were immune from judgment?
1. Their relationship to Abraham
2. Their possession of the Law
3. Circumcision
4. Benefits they have already received
5. Their good works
6. Merits of their ancestors
7. False teachings or the rabbis
Yes the Gentiles were guilty of terrible sins but the Jew had no basis to condemn them
because they were also guilty of sin. A sinner has no foundation from which to
condemn another sinner. Besides, if you judge, you will be judged according to the
same basis by which you judged others. Go ahead and judge but only if you are willing
to subject yourself to that same judgment. The real problem here was the hypocrisy of
the Jews in condemning the Gentiles for the same sins they were guilty of. Thus when
the Jew, up in his ivory tower, condemned the Gentile, he really ended up condemning
himself. Remember, when you point that finger at someone, four other fingers point
back at you.
The Gentiles, despite their sin, also harbored false ideas as to their supposed
protection from divine judgment. Why does the Gentile think he will escape judgment?
1. Money or position
2. Poverty or insignificance. The social gospel is built upon the idea that God will
not judge the poor and oppressed but that God is very angry with the wealthy. It has
the idea that God is a socialist Who engages in class warfare.
3. Religious profession or church membership/attendance
4. Good works
5. Their pious ancestors
6. Unbelief of God's Word
We must also be very careful that we do not fall victim to this same attitude, that we are
somehow qualified to judge others as the Jews thought they were to judge the Gentiles.
But how often do we judge unrighteous judgment, condemning the same sins that we
78
are guilty of. We often condemn others while we ought to be condemning ourselves
instead.
“The sin of the hypocrite is that of being indignant at other people’s shortcomings and of
being indulgent of his own (John Phillips, Exploring Romans, page 36).”
****************************************************************************************************
2:2 But we are surea-perfect that the judgment of God ispresent according to truth
against them which commit present participle such things.
2a "we are sure" This Greek phrase is a formula used to introduce a fact that is
"common knowledge" or that is generally accepted. It is in the perfect tense, showing
an absolute statement with no room for doubt or debate.
****************************************************************************************************
2:3a And thinkestpresent middle thou this, O man, that judgestpresent middle them which
dopresent participle such things, and doestpresent participle the same, that thou shalt
escapefuture middle the judgment of God?b
3a Paul asks the two stinging questions in 2:3,4 to get this self-righteous moralist judge
to see his own hypocrisy. All men will be judged of their sin. The issue is their personal
accountability to God. By neglecting the fact of God's judgment and how God provided a
means of escape of this judgment (through the cross), man ends up despising:
1. The riches of the goodness of God
2. The riches of the forbearance of God. God keeps putting of judgment as long
as He can until man exhausts God's patience.
3. The riches of the longsuffering of God
3b Of course, no one shall escape the judgment of God, including the one who
imagines himself immune from such judgment by virtue pf the fact that he believes
himself qualified to undertake the ministry of Christ on the bema seat and judge the
brethren. His judgment will be more severe than those whom he judged so harshly.
God oftentimes isn’t as concerned with the actions of others that seem to upset
hypocrites so.
**************************************************************************************************
2:4 Or despisesta-b-present thou the riches of his goodnessc and forbearanced and
longsuffering;e not knowingpresent participle that the goodnessc of God leadethf-present
thee to repentance?g-h
4a "despisest thou..." Emphatic with a declaration with the question “Do you despise?
Yes, you do despise.”
4b The ESV renders this “Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and
forbearance and patience”. The King James has “despisest” but the ESV mangles it to
79
simply “presuming upon” the goodness and forbearance and longsuffering of God.
Presuming upon something is taking it for granted but that can be done without
despising it.
4c The other English translations handle “the goodness” of God differently. Tyndale,
the Bishop’s Bible and the ESV have “kindness” while the Coverdale adds “loving
kindness”. The Geneva has “bountifulness” which isn’t really the thought here.
4d “forebearance” Strong’s #463 anoche anôchêe, self-restraint, tolerance, a holding
back. In Classical Greek, a truce of arms. Used only here and in Romans 3:25.
4e “longsuffering”. This is an attribute of God. God is exceedingly patient with the
sins of mankind and does judge at once. But simply because He has not yet judged sin
does not mean that He will not or that He cannot. He simply has not done so yet, but
He most certainly will at some point in the future. People take this patience as some
license to sin instead of a means of grace.
4f Notice the present tense- the goodness of God is right now, continually, seeking to
lead the sinner to repentance. This is an on-going, 24-hour a day evangelistic ministry
of the goodness of God.
4g What man mistakes as a lack of God's judgment upon him is really nothing more
than a gracious delay on God's part to get the sinner to repent. Yet this delay usually
winds up hardening man's heart all the more. He misunderstands this delay in
judgment to mean that God does not care about his sin or that He does not see it as a
sin worthy of punishment. The misguided fool will use mercy and delay of judgment as
a license to continue in his sin. Thus God's delay, designed for his salvation, drives the
sinner into deeper sin as a result of his pride and self-deceit. God will render to every
man according to his deeds, whether man thinks so or not.
4h “repentance” Josephus uses it for a change of mind of those who have begun to
abhor their errors and misdeeds and have determined to enter upon a better course of
life, so that it embraces both a recognition of sin and sorrow for it and hearty
amendment, the tokens and effects of which are good deeds. Remorse as regret for
shortcomings and errors, used with an expressly religious coloring for the positive side
of repentance, the beginning of a new religious and moral life, conversion, repentance
that leads to the forgiveness of sins.
****************************************************************************************************
2:5 But after thy hardnessa and impenitent heartb treasurest upc-present unto thyself
wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;d
5a “hardness” Strong’s #4643 sklerotes sklerotes; callousness, stubbornness,
hardness, dry. Used only here in the New Testament. We get our English word
“sclerosis” from this, as in arteriosclerosis, or the hardening of the arteries.
80
5b The Geneva Bible renders this phrase “a heart that cannot repent”. That might be
too strong. An impenitent heart is a heart that will not repent, not necessarily one that
cannot repent. Some Calvinistic doctrine of reprobation may have slipped into this
translation.
5c "treasurest up" "Treasuring up wrath is the sinner's daily and hourly employment"
(Thomas Robinson, Studies in Romans, 1/133).
5d The Jew thought that he would escape the judgment of God. Just because God had
not yet judged the Jew gave them a false hope that God would not. After all, they were
the seed of Abraham! But in AD 70, God did level a massive judgment on Israel and
they have been under judgment for their sin ever since and will be to the end of the
Tribulation. If they thought that was bad, then what till they see the results of their
"treasuring up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous
judgment of God"!
****************************************************************************************************
2:6 Who will rendera-future to every man according to his deeds:b
6a The Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva and Bishop’s Bible all have this as a reward.
6b Be sure of it! Regardless if you are a Jew or a Gentile, you can't do wrong and get
away with it! God rewards the obedient and punishes the disobedient. This is an
inflexible law of nature, as constant as the law of gravity. And God will be fair, just and
equitable when He does it. You will get a fair shake from God and you will receive
everything you have coming to you. We will be judges according to our deeds and not
our professions, pedigrees, promises or resolutions.
We will be judged for our deeds, not those of another. No man goes to hell
because of Adam’s sin or because “the devil made him do it”. A man is judged for his
own actions and is held personally accountable for his own sins, not those of another.
***************************************************************************************************
2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seekpresent participle for glory
and honor and immortality, eternal life:a-b
7a The righteous will seek after 4 things:
1. Glory
2. Honor
3. Immortality
4. Eternal life. This is a bit different from immortality. “Immortality” deals with the
length of life. “Eternal life” deals with the quality of that life. Those in hell/lake of fire will
have immortality but it is never said that they have “eternal life”, especially since they
are suffering from the second death (Revelation 2:11; 20:6,14; 21:8).
81
7b I’m an not sure that the ESV has it well when it presents God giving eternal life to
those who seek for glory, honor and immortality. The traditional translations present it
as Paul desiring that God will give such ones eternal life.
****************************************************************************************************
2:8 But unto them that are contentious,a and do not obeypresent participle the truth, but
obeyb-present middle participle unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,c-d
8a “contentious” Strong’s #2052 eriyhia erithêia; intrigue, faction, to work for hire,
used in a bad sense of those who seek only their own, strife, rivalry. It represents a
motive of self-interest, mercenary interest. It also meant canvassing for public office by
using questionable means, scheming. Used of those who electioneer for office, courting
popular applause by trickery and low arts. The New Testament definition would then be
a courting distinction, a desire to put one's self forward, a partisan and factious spirit
which does not distain low arts, factiousness. This idea is derived from the Macedonian
age from a spinner or weaver, a worker in wool.
Tyndale has this as “rebellious” while the ESV has this as “those who are selfseeking”.
8b The unrighteous man will obey 3 things, in direct contrast to the righteous man in
2:7:
1. Unrighteousness.
2. Indignation. Used by Plato as signifying both the spirit panting as it were
concerning the body and the rage with which the man pants and swells.
3. Wrath, extreme anger
8c “unrighteousness, indignation and wrath” An unholy trinity of sins.
8d The ESV has this as “wrath and fury”.
***************************************************************************************************
2:9a Tribulation and anguish,b upon every soul of manc that doethpresent middle/passive
participle
evil, of the Jew first,d and also of the Gentile;e
9a The reward for the wicked man in 2:8 is:
1. Tribulation, trouble and lots of it as God will plague him in this life before He
judges him for the next.
2. Anguish
He will receive these rewards, ultimately, when he arrives at the lake of fire,
regardless if this man is a Jew or Gentile, although the Jew would probably be judged
more severely as he had greater spiritual benefits than the Gentile did.
9b ESV has “distress”.
82
9c The ESV wanders too far into “gender-neutral” language, despite one of its
motivations behind its translation was to oppose the same practice in the New
International Version. Here, the ESV uses “every human being” but there is no good
justification for this change except to insert “gender neutral” language into the text to
appease the feminists.
9d “to the Jew first” Because the Jew received the gospel first and was more
accountable to it due to his religious heritage and history. With the greater privileges
come the greater responsibilities and greater judgment for failure.
9e But there will be no escape for the Gentile.
The Coverdale, Geneva, Bishops and ESV has this as “Greek”. This is a bad
rendering. Not every Gentile is a Greek and not even every Greek is a Gentile.
***************************************************************************************************
2:10a-b But glory, honor, and peace, to every man that workethpresent middle/passive participle
good, to the Jew first,c and also to the Gentile:d-e
10a The punishments are equal as are the rewards, both to Jew and Gentile.
10b The righteous man of 2:7 will be rewarded with:
1. Glory
2. Honor
3. Peace
You will be rewarded with what you are searching for. The wicked man seeks sin, he
will get more of it than he can handle. The righteous man wants peace, glory and honor
and he will be rewarded with it by the Lord.
10c “to the Jew first” As in 2:9, except this time, with regards to the rewards for
obedience. It works both ways, for judgment and rewards.
10d This would irritate a Jew, to think that a righteous Gentile could be rewarded in the
same way a righteous Jew would!
10e The Coverdale, Geneva, Bishops and ESV has this as “Greek”. This is a bad
rendering. Not every Gentile is a Greek and not even every Greek is a Gentile.
****************************************************************************************************
2:11a For there ispresent no respect of personsb-c with God.
11a The Tyndale and Coverdale have the first part of verse 12 attached to verse 11.
11b "respect of person" The fault of one who when called on to requite or to give
judgment has respect to the outward circumstances of men and not to their intrinsic
merits, and so prefers as the more worthy, one who is rich, high-born, or powerful, to
83
another who is destitute of such gifts. Having respect of persons, or favoring one man
over another on the basis of class, education or wealth, is called a sin in James 2:1-9.
God is impartial in His dealings with men and is the fairst judge you could ever
hope to have. God will always judge fairly and give you a “fair shake”, even if you don’t
like the results of it! The Jew will not get a break simply because he is a Jew. There is
no respect of persons in terms of judgment or reward. The difference is the timing of
these rewards or judgments (to the Jew first...).
11c The Tyndale has “parcialyte” for “respect of persons” and I must admit, I do not
know what that word means. The other traditional translations have “respect of
persons”. The ESV has “partiality”.
**************************************************************************************************
9. Possession of the Law No Safeguard From Judgment 2:12-16
2:12a For as many as have sinnedaorist without law shall also perishfuture middle
without law: and as many as have sinnedaorist in the law shall be judgedfuture passive
by the law;
12a The case of the Gentile is here summarized. All men perish under sin, either with
the Law (Jew) or without it (Gentile). Just because the Gentile was not given the Law
does not excuse him from it. Just because the Jew was given the Law does not protect
him from being judged by it. Even if a man did keep the Law, it would not justify him.
This hits the Jew who thought because he knew it that he would be justified. Simply
because the Gentiles did not have the Law to guide them does not exempt them from
judgment. They shall perish anyway. Simply because the Jew had the Law will not
exempt him from judgment. He will be judged by it. Either way, Jew and Gentile will be
judged, regardless of their relationship to the Law.
****************************************************************************************************
2:13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God,a but the doersb of the law
shall be justified.future passive
13a "For not the hearers of the law are just before God" This is aimed at the Jew,
who hear the law read and expounded every Sabbath in the synagogue. He heard the
Law and knew it. But simply because he had heard the Law read would amount to no
spiritual advantage to him unless he made an application to the Law in his own life. A
head knowledge was not sufficient. It was a heart acceptance that was necessary and
required. To be a mere hearer or auditor of the word of God in a church is not enough.
Merely to attend a church or be a member of a church and to hear the word of God
being preached is not enough to bring justification to a person, he must put the word of
God into action in his own life and heart in order to gain justification.
13b "but the doers" See James 1:22-25. What is this so-called "disagreement"
between Paul and James that some commentators have claimed to find? There is
84
none, of course. Paul is echoing the theme of James 2, where James says that faith
must be evidenced by works. To merely hear the word of God and do nothing with it
(like accept it) does nothing spiritually for the hearer. Justification comes from a proper
application of the received word and belief in it.
*************************************************************************************************
2:14 For when the Gentiles, which havepresent participle not the law, dopresent subjunctive by
nature the things contained in the law, these, having-present participle not the law,
arepresent a law unto themselves:a
14a There is a basis for Gentile judgment and condemnation, even if they are ignorant
of the law. That is the basis of conscience and natural theology (2:15). Even though
they do not have the law, Gentiles still know what is right and wrong because of their
god-given conscience, plus the preaching of natural religion. Nature is a wonder
preacher (Psalm 19) to tell you there is a God and He does have a law. This law, in
basic form, is imprinted on every human heart. Everyone knows murder and theft are
wrong, no matter who you are or where you live. Even in the deepest jungles among
the most heathen of tribes, they know better than to take their neighbor’s cow and tie it
in their front yard.
****************************************************************************************************
2:15 Which shewpresent middle the work of the law written in their hearts, their
consciencea also bearing witness,present participle and their thoughts the mean while
accusingpresent participle or else excusingb-present middle/passive participle one another;)c-d
15a "conscience" Thomas Robinson (Studies in Romans) gives a summary of
"conscience" (1/157). "Innate connatural judgment implanted in all men, approving or
condemning their conduct (Schott). 'Conscience 'is not merely that which I know, but
that which I know with some other; that other being God, who makes His law and His
presence felt and acknowledged in the heart (Trench). Conscience a double or joint
knowledge; one of a divine law or rule, and the other of a man's own action (South).
Refers etymologically to the reflex attention which the mind gives to its own condition or
acts. Primarily identical with self-knowledge or self-consciousness. Such still the
general meaning of the corresponding Greek, Latin, and French words. By early
Christian moralists and even by heathen writers, conscience is not only consciousness,
but- (1). The faculty which recognizes the law which is to try them; (2). The Judge who
inflicts the penalty due to disobedience (Wayland's Elements of Moral Science).
Conscience the faculty by which we discern the moral quality of actions and are capable
of certain affections in respect to this quality (Wayland). The voice which pronounces
for each man the distinction between right and wrong (Whewell)...Purely impulsive; a
moral spring rather than a moral guide (Payne)...First perceptions of right or wrong not
the object of reason, but of immediate sense and feeling (Adam Smith). The moral
sense (Hutcheson). Moral faculty (Macintosh). The inward testimony and judge as to
our own conduct. No guilty man absolved in the court of his own conscience
85
(Seneca)...What ails thee? what disease destroys thee? Conscience; for I am conscious
of having done a dreadful deed (Euripides).”
15b “excusing” How well-versed we are at excusing and justifying sin! Man can
justify anything. He can justify murder (“he had it coming”), theft (“I need the money” or
“my boss is a crook anyway”) to adultery (“my wife doesn’t love me anymore”). If you
can’t think of a way to somehow justify your sin, the devil will be more than happy to
give you more possibilities.
15c This passage connects with Romans 1:20. The Gentiles, although they do not
have the Law of Moses, still have a law they are accountable to. That is the witness of
nature and conscience, as discussed in chapter 1. That basically says the same thing
as the Law of Moses and that is designed to guide the Gentile in the absence of the
Law. While the Law of Moses was written on tables of stone, this law is written upon
the heart so that all men are aware of it. The law of conscience is written on the Gentile
heart and that is what he is responsible to. His conscience will point him to God if he is
willing to follow. Their consciences will accuse them of their sin. The question then is
"Will they respond to this witness or not?"
15d The ESV omits the the idea of these Gentiles accusing or excusing each other.
****************************************************************************************************
2:16 In the daya-b when God shall judgefuture the secrets of men by Jesus Christc
according to my gospel.d
16a When is this day? That depends upon to whom it is addressed. For the believer,
it would be the bema judgment. For the unbeliever, it would be the Great White Throne
judgment. It is at these judgments when the hearts of men will be made manifest and
rewards or punishments bestowed. And it will be Jesus Christ who will preside at both
judgments. But since the context is dealing with the unbelieving sinner, the primary
application would probably at the Great White Throne.
16b “In the day” What an expectation!
“God shall judge” What an experience!
“the secrets of men” What an exposure!
“by Jesus Christ” What an Executor! Critical texts transpose this to “Christ Jesus”.
“according to my gospel” What an examination! (Ian Paisley, An Exposition of the
Epistle to the Romans, pages 33-34).
16c The ESV has “Christ Jesus”.
16d "my gospel" The Gospel as Paul preached it and understood it. Romans may
very rightly be called The Gospel According to Paul. Paul did not create this gospel, of
course, but the revelation of it was committed to him and he identified himself so closely
and so strongly with it that he considered it "his".
86
****************************************************************************************************
10. Being a Jew No Protection From Divine Judgement 2:17-24
2:17 Behold,a thou art calledpresent passive a Jew,b and restestpresent middle/passive in the
law, and makest thy boastpresent middle/passive of God,c
17a Paul summarizes the state of the Jew. He is called a Jew by both Gentiles and
fellow Jews, thus, he has a reputation and a name. He rests in the Law in that he puts
his trust and confidence in it. He bets his soul against his obedience to the Law.
Because of that he makes his boast of God. A man who thinks he keeps the Law is
usually a proud, boastful man. He does knows the will of God but this doesn't
necessarily mean he'll do it! He approves the things that are most excellent. He is
instructed out of the Law. He believes he is a guide to the blind (those ignorant of the
Law, like a Gentile). He teaches the Law to others yet does not teach it to himself. For
example, he teaches others not to steal/commit adultery/commit sacrilege out of the
Law while he is doing these very things.
17b The ESV shifts the voice of the verb from the passive (as in the King James) to
active “But if you call yourself a Jew.” The Coverdale adds “take heed”.
17c Before we move on, let's summarize the positional advantages the Jew had over
the Gentile, as given in 2:17-20:
1. He was called a Jew. He did have a claim to be the physical seed of Abraham
(2:17).
2. He rested in the law (2:17).
3. He made his boast of God. He knew the true God as He had revealed Himself
to him and had entrusted to the Jew His Law (2:17).
4. The Jew knew the will of God (2:18).
5. The Jew did approve those things that were more excellent. They did choose
the divine and reject the profane (2:18).
6. He was instructed out of the Law, a privilege denied to most Gentiles (2:18).
He actually was taught the wisdom of God.
7. He was confident that he was a guide of the blind and a light to those who
were in darkness (2:19). This would include the Gentiles who had to grope along in the
darkness of their sin and ignorance of the Law. The Jew was supposed to guide him to
the light of the revelation of the Law.
8. He was an instructor of the foolish and a teacher of babes (2:20). This
presupposes that the Jew had enough understanding of the Law to be able to teach it.
9. He had a form of knowledge in the Law (2:20).
Just what were the Jews being taught in respect to the Law? What were the rabbis
teaching them? Not the Law in its pure form but rather tradition. Below is a sampling of
rabbinical teaching which passes for "the Law".
1. Rabbis were to be honored over one's own father and was to be reverenced
87
as God Himself. Sounds like the pope!
2. Men were not to pray in the presence of a rabbi, nor to salute him.
3. Rabbis were able to excommunicate men who had offended them on the spot
for nearly any reason.
4. Rabbis practiced astrology, magic and used charms and amulets.
5. They taught men how to evade divine commands.
6. Rabbis made it legal to swindle a Gentile or an impious Jews of his land and
not have to make restitution. He could even kill an unlearned Jew and not be punished.
7. They taught salvation by works and rituals.
8. Rabbis had men whipped for the slightest offences.
9. Rabbis forbade helping a poor man on the Sabbath and forbade helping a
Gentile under any circumstance, even in life-or-death situations.
10. Rabbis would openly debate God and would accuse Him of foolishness.
11. Rabbis taught Israel was righteous because they received the Law.
12. They also taught anyone Jew buried in the Holy Land would not see
condemnation.
“The heathen is a man with a perverted religion; the hypocrite is a man with a pretended
religion; the Hebrew represents a man with a powerless religion (John Phillips,
Exploring Romans, page 46).”
****************************************************************************************************
2:18 And knowestpresent his will, and approvestpresent the things that are more
excellent,a-b-present participle being instructed out present passive participle of the law;c
18a Or “you know right from wrong because of your possession of the law.”
18b The ESV omits the “more” before “excellent”. The traditional translations all handle
the first part of this verse differently, mainly regarding the idea of “approvest”.
18c “being instructed out of the law” A Jewish advantage that no Gentile had,
unless he was a proselyte. But access to the Law obviously did the Jew little good as
his sins were as bad as the Gentiles, who were ignorant of that same Law.
****************************************************************************************************
2:19 And art confidenta-perfect that thou thyself artpresent a guide of the blind, a light
of them which are in darkness,b
19a The Coverdale inserts a sense of pride on the part of the Jew in this attitude.
19b The Jew imagined himself to be a spiritual light and a guide to the Gentile, who
was blind as to the law and the things of God. Now God certainly intended for this to be
the case, but with the apostasy of Israel, this situation wound up being a case of “the
blind leading the blind.”
***************************************************************************************************
88
2:20 An instructora of the foolish, a teacher of babes,b which hastpresent participle the
form of knowledgec and of the truth in the law.
20a The Tyndale, Coverdale and Bishops use “informer”.
20b "Foolish and babes" would be a Jewish reference to the Gentiles, even Gentile
converts to Judaism. Naturally, the terms were used in a degrading sense. The
Bishops Bible uses “them which lack discretion”.
20c The Tyndale and Coverdale use “ensample”. The ESV has “embodiment”.
****************************************************************************************************
2:21 Thou therefore which teachestpresent participle another, teachestpresent thou not
thyself? thou that preachestpresent participle a man should not steal,present dost thou
steal?a-b-present
21a Paul points up three specific examples of how the Jews were making themselves
out to be hypocrites before the Gentiles they were looking down upon:
1. Verse 21- They taught a man should not steal yet they stole ("sacrilege" of
2:22).
2. Verse 22- They taught a man should not commit adultery yet they committed
adultery. Paul singled out this sin as it was a very common problem among the Jews of
his day. They also railed against idolatry yet were guilty of this sin. The "abhorrest" has
the idea of a physical repulsion. The Jews had such an aversion to the physical act of
bowing down to gods of stone and wood but seemed to have no such aversion to
setting up the invisible idol in the private chambers of the heart.
3. Verse 23- They boasted of the Law yet broke it continually.
The Jews were not practicing what they were preaching, and in so doing, made
themselves out to be hypocrites of the worst stripe. The Gentiles had an “out” since
they did not have the law and were not preaching the morality that the Jews claimed
they practiced. The Jews, who publicly condemned these sins and knew better, were
actually committing them in secret- they were doing the very sins in private that they
condemned openly, which made them religious hypocrites.
21b Stealing was a popular vice in that day, even among the Jews. It’s popularity has
not waned even to our own day.
***************************************************************************************************
2:22 Thou that sayestpresent participle a man should not commit adultery,infinitive dost
thou commit adultery?a-present thou that abhorresta-present middle/passive participle idols, dost
thou commit sacrilege?b-present
22a Another very popular sin of Paul’s day, widely practiced even by the Jews (see
Jeremiah 5:8).
89
22b "abhorrest idols" The Jews, after their return from the Babylonian captivity,
developed a physical revulsion to the very thought of idolatry. When they saw idolatry
in action, they would shrink away in sheer horror and revulsion. How different from a
typical Roman Catholic, who can’t practice his religion without a lot of statues and “holy
pictures!”
22c “sacrilege” Strong’s #2416 ‘ierosulew hierosuleô; to rob a temple, used only
here. What does it mean to “rob a temple?” The idea is to show disrespect for the
temple or other place of worship by not contributing to it or by stealing from it. So many
people have absolutely no respect for anything connected to God or the Bible.
Despising a “temple” by lack of attendance or blasphemous words would also fit into
this. Christians can be guilty of this attitude toward a local church. “The English word
comes from a French word of the same spelling. It means stealing or misappropriating
what is consecrated to God’s service or profaning anything held sacred (Laurence
Vance, Archaic Words and the Authorized Version, page 296).”
Most commentators think "dost thou commit sacrilege” is an incorrect
translation since the Jews were supposedly beneath this sin, but obviously they weren’t.
In Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, Vol. IV, viii, p. 10, he quotes Moses as addressing
the Jews near Jordan, "let no one blaspheme the gods which other cities revere, nor rob
foreign temples, nor take treasure that has been dedicated in the name of any god."
Furthermore, Deuteronomy 7:25 reads, "The carved images of their gods shall ye burn
with fire; thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest
thou be snared therein; for it is an abomination to the Lord thy God." Also in the uproar
at Ephesus, Paul and others were defended by the town clerk when he said, "ye have
brought here these men, who are neither robbers of temples, nor yet blasphemers of
your goddess" (Acts 19:37).
The ESV has this as “rob temples” as do most of the modern versions.
****************************************************************************************************
2:23 Thou that makest thy boastpresent middle/passive of the law, through breaking the
lawa-b dishonourestpresent thou God?c-d
23a "breaking the law" or "transgressing the law", which gives the impression of a
deliberate and willful violation of the law of God.
23b R. C. Trench remarks upon “the mournfully numerous groups of words which
express the different aspects of sin”:
1. hamartia, the missing of a mark
2. parabasis, the overpassing of a line
3. parakoe, the disobedience to a voice
4. paraptoma, a falling when one should have stood
5. agnoema, ignorance of what one should know
6. hettema, a diminishing of what should be rendered in full measure
7. anomia or paranomia, non-observance of the law
90
8. plemmeleia, dischord.
"Sin" is implicit, "transgression" is explicit, a deliberate act.
23c "dishonourest thou God?" The implied answer is “yes”. By his hypocrisy, the
Jew ends up dishonoring God and giving Gentiles opportunity to blaspheme. He
claimed to be so superior to the Gentile because he was a Jew and because he had the
Law, but he acted no better than the Gentile did. The Gentile sinned without the Law
while the Jew sinned with the Law. Who do you think would receive the greater
damnation? The Law and heritage did nothing to make the Jew better than the Gentile,
so he also stands in condemnation. This is displayed in 2:21 with Paul saying "You
teach Gentiles not to sin yet you sin yourself. You teach them to keep the Law while at
the same time you break it! You teach others yet you do not teach yourself." The talk of
the Jew was not matching the walk of the Jew.
23d Only the Bishops Bible agrees with the King James by making this verse a
question.
****************************************************************************************************
2:24 For the name of God is blasphemeda-present passive among the Gentiles through
you, as it is written.b-perfect passive
24a "For the name of God is blasphemed" You can blaspheme God by act and a
hypocritical life, as well as with words and thoughts.
24b "As it is written" is quoted from Ezekiel 36:20,23. Perfect tense- it has been
written and remains written, not to be changed or altered. It is a completed action with
continuous results or the continuance of an act completed in the past. The components
are always a past action and continuous results. References to the Scriptures like this
are often presented in the perfect tense. "The just shall live by faith" is one of those
unalterable truths of Christianity. This perfect tense in reference to New Testament
references to Old Testament texts is used 62 times in the New Testament, 16 times in
Romans (1:17; 2:24; 3:4,10; 4:17; 8:36; 9:13,33; 10:15; 11:8,26; 12:19; 14:11;
15:3,9,21). This usage of the perfect is a strong argument for the verbal and plenary
preservation of the Scripture, as the written Old Testament word stands forever and
continues to.
***************************************************************************************************
11. Circumcision and Uncircumcision 2:25-27
2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth,present if thou keep the law:present subjunctive but if
thou bepresent subjunctive a breaker of the law,a thy circumcision is madeperfect
uncircumcision.b
91
25a "breaker of the law" or a "transgressor of the law", one who deliberately breaks
the law. This would include both the Jew, who broke it despite his knowledge of the
law, and the Gentile, who broke it in his ignorance.
25b This mind-set of the Jew nullifies the value of his circumcision by his hypocrisy.
Circumcision is not the most important issue, but obedience. An uncircumcised Gentile
who obeyed God would be in a better situation than a circumcised Jew who was
disobedient. The circumcised Jew may even find himself judged by the uncircumcised
Gentile! This circumcision, which the Jew prided himself in, was wasted by his sin and
served only to increase the burden of his guilt and judgment as he continued in his
rebellion. Circumcision is only effective spiritually if the Law is kept.
The Jew had the same mentality regarding his circumcision as some Christians
have regarding their baptism, their keeping of sacraments, what denominational tag
they call themselves or even their race or nationality (“I’m not a heathen, I was born in
America!”). But both these Jews and Gentiles find themselves running into the same
dead end in trying to appeal to these outward things for their internal justification. None
of them work before God. Outward ritual cannot bring inward justification.
***************************************************************************************************
2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keeppresent subjunctive the righteousness of the
law, shall not his uncircumcision be countedfuture passive for circumcision?a
26a An uncircumcised Gentile could attain to the same righteousness as a circumcised
Jew. Here, circumcision has no part to play in how righteous or unrighteous a believer
is. A righteous Gentile is just as righteous as any observant Jew.
****************************************************************************************************
2:27 And shall not uncircumcisiona which is by nature, if it fulfilpresent participle the
law, judgefuture thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?b-c
27a Why does the ESV add “physically” before “uncircumcised” here?
27b How revolting for a circumcised Jew! In the day of judgment, a righteous Gentile
who has never been circumcised could end up judging an unrighteous Jew who had
been circumcised!
27c The ESV has “written code”. How is that an improvement from the word “law”?
***************************************************************************************************
12. Who Is A Jew? 2:28,29
2:28a For he ispresent not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that
circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:b-c
92
28a “Now we come to a very important passage. It is important because it has been
used by Catholics and most of your Reformed churches (Lutheran, Presbyterians,
Episcopalians, etc) to steal the Old Testament physical promises from the nation of
Israel. Moreover, nearly every heretical group (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day
Adventists, Mormons, Church of Christ, etc.) uses these verses to substitute their sect
for Israel when it comes to the blessings God gave to the Jews (Peter Ruckman, The
Bible Believer’s Commentary on Romans, Page 96).”
Only Dispensationalism, among the theological systems, maintains this sharp
distinction between Israel and the Church. Israel is not the Church and the Church is
not Israel and the two cannot be mixed theologically. The Bible gives absolutely no
encouragement to any theological system to steal the promises and covenants that God
gave to Israel and give them to the Church or to the Gentiles. It is spiritual theft and
vampirism because those covenant and promises are the lifeblood of the nation. Any
theological system that tries to apply the Jewish promises in the Psalms or Isaiah (for
example) to the Church is a false theological system.
A majority of commentators do not make this distinction. Most Protestant and
non-dispensational commentators (including covenant theologians and nonpremillennialists) teach that the Church replaced Israel after they rejected Christ. For
an example of this, refer to the Thompson Chain Reference Bible and look through the
Old Testament, especially in the Psalms and Isaiah 40-66 where Thompson put the
Church into the chapter headings, where the church is not being talked about. Israel is
the subject of these verses, not the Church. To try to make the Church “new Israel” (or
something like that) will lead to all manner of theological dead-ends. The Church of
Rome does not hold to this distinction, which enabled them to believe that they were the
“City of God” (to cite Augustine) on earth and that it was okay to establish fascist statechurch set-ups. John Calvin and the Massachusetts Puritans fell into that trap, which
led to infant baptism and persecution of any religious group that did not conform to the
established religion.
28b See remarks under 2:29.
28c As in 2:27, the ESV wants to insert the word “physical” here.
***************************************************************************************************
2:29 But he is a Jew,a which is one inwardly; and circumcisionb is that of the
heart,c in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.d
29a What is a Jew? Who is a Jew? Is everyone who calls himself a Jew really a Jew?
Are these arrogant, self-centered Jews Paul described above true Jews or are they men
who call themselves Jews who are ignorant of what it means to be a true Jew? The
latter is true. Outward circumcision does not make a Jew (see Ishmael- he was a
circumcised non-Jew!). You could circumcise an unsaved Gentile and that would not
make him a Jew. Nor does observance of Jewish ritual, such as synagogue
attendance, knowledge of Hebrew, observance of feasts, wearing of phylacteries or
anything else made a man a Jew. A true Jew is one who is circumcised inwardly- of the
93
heart. His old nature is cut free from his heart. It is still there but he is no longer bound
to it. He obeys the Law in spirit, not just in letter. Paul then makes the distinction
between a racial Jew and a spiritual Jew. Simply because Abraham is your father does
not make you a true Jew for many modern Jews are atheist or are non-practicing and
basically reject the God of their Fathers.
29b The Tyndale inserts “true circumcision”.
29c The ESV renders this as “circumcision is a matter of the heart”.
29d Let's make a summary of the court proceedings up to this point. This is a trial.
The Gentile and the Jew are both on trial for their sin. In Romans 1,2, Paul dismantles
the plea of the heathen, the hypocrite and the Hebrew. The charge against mankind:
High treason Against the Government of Heaven by Sin. The Pleas:
1. The heathen: I plead innocent on the basis of ignorance.
1. Refutation: The witness of nature and conscience show you your
condition 1:19,20.
2. The hypocrite: I am not as bad as some and am better than most.
1. Refutation: You do the same sins that other men whom you condemn
commit 2:20.
3. The Hebrew: I'm a Jew.
1. Refutation: You act like a Gentile and are guilty of the same sins. Your
being a Jew does you no good.
94
Romans Chapter 3
The Jew would be expected to react strongly against Paul's condemnation of his along
with the Gentiles. Paul anticipates Jewish objections by answering them in chapter 3.
The Jew would ask 7 questions and Paul would answer them. But most of these
questions were just “red herrings” that they would throw out into the debate in order to
try to confuse the issue and counter and criticism of them. The asking and answering of
questions was a favorite rabbinical method of teaching, one Paul would have been very
familiar with.
Question 1: Is there any advantage of being a Jew? (3:1,2)
Answer- Yes, because the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.
Question 2: Will Israel’s unfaithfulness nullify God’s promises? (3:3,4)
Answer- No.
Question 3: If God uses human sin to set forth His glory, would He not be
unrighteous to punish that same sin? (3:5,6)
Answer- No.
Question 4: If the truth of God was enhanced through the sin and rebellion of the
Jew and if He got glory through it, why would He punish the Jew as a sinner?
(3:7,8)
Answer- What a silly question! Do you think God will overlook your sin simply because
you are a Jew? If He would not overlook Gentile sin, why should He pass over the sins
of the Jews?
Question 5: Are Jews better than other people? (3:9-20)
Answer- No, but they are special in God’s eyes and have unique privileges and
responsibilities, which will subject them to more intense judgments. Many Jews thought
they had some special “protection” with God due to no other fact that they were Jews.
Paul, as an ex-Pharisee, probably held to such a view dogmatically until the Lord
corrected his thinking.
Question 6: How does God save people? (3:21-30)
Answer: By grace through faith, without the deeds of the law.
Question 7: Does faith nullify the law? (3:31)
Answer: No, faith fulfills the law.
In verses 1-8 Paul raised and answered four objections that a Jew might have offered to
squirm out from under the guilty verdict Paul had pronounced on him in chapter 2. The
essential objections are as follows.
1. The Jews are a privileged people (vv. 1-2).
2. God will remain faithful to the Jews despite their unfaithfulness to Him (vv. 3-
95
4).
3. God will be merciful since the Jews' failings have magnified God's
righteousness.
4. God will overlook the Jews' sins since they contribute to the glory of God.
Self-righteous people still raise these objections. Some people assume that because
God has blessed them He will not condemn them. Some believe the character of God
prohibits Him from condemning them. Some think that even though they have sinned
God will be merciful and not condemn them. Some feel that since everything we do
glorifies God in some way God would be unjust to condemn them. (Thomas Constable,
Notes
on Romans).”
***
****************************************************************************************************
13. What Advantage Has The Jew? 3:1-2
3:1 What advantagea then hath the Jew?b-c or what profit d is there of
circumcision?
1a The Tyndale, Geneva and Bishops use “preferment”. Coverdale uses “furtherance”.
The ESV agrees with the better King James rendering.
1b Seeing the Jews are in the same condemnation as the Gentiles, as Paul proved in
chapter 2, is there any advantage to being a Jew? Does he have any special status or
standing before God? If Jews and Gentiles are both guilty before God, what advantage
is there in being a Jew? Paul says yes! They have the advantage that they received
the oracles of God. They received the Scriptures and were placed into custodianship of
them. And they did a rather good job in their preservation and guardianship of the Old
Testament scriptures.
1c It was a grand thing to be a Jew in the Old Testament days. When all the rest of the
world was in the dark, the Jews had the light for “unto them were committed the oracles
of God.” The Jews had many spiritual advantages over the Gentiles:
1. In knowledge and revelation: he had light the Gentiles did not have and was
given the Old Testament scriptures.
2. In laws: he had the Law of Moses
3. In government: God was their King
4. In religion: it was a God-established religion
5. In social life: the Jews were the most advanced social people
So the Jew had an advantage in external privilege but not in divine acceptance. What
did the Jew do with these advantages? Nothing- he wound up in the same pit with the
Gentile.
1d The Tyndale, Coverdale and Bishop’s use “advantage” here. The ESV uses “value”
while the Geneva agrees with the King James.
***************************************************************************************************
96
3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committedaorist passive the
oracles of God.a-b
2a Notice this name for the Scriptures, the "oracles of God". This is simply a term to
describe the sayings of God as He spoke them to the Old Testament prophets, who
later preserved them in written form. In the heathen religions of Paul’s day, if a
worshiper of a certain god wanted a revelation or some divine guidance, he would go to
the appropriate temple, pay the required sum, and one of the priests or priestesses
would give him the desired word. The Bible is God’s word to us. God speaks to us
through His Word. The Bible, as the Word of God, is the means and channel that God
uses to communicate with His people, hence it’s being called an “oracle”.
We also see that in order for a set of "religious writings" to be the "oracles of
God", it must be given through the Jews, so both the Old and New Testaments qualify.
The New Testament qualifies because every writer was a racial Jew (even Luke I
believe was a racial Jew). This means that the Hindu and Buddhist "scriptures",
although ancient, do not qualify since Israel had nothing to do with them. This also
disqualifies the Koran since Israel had nothing to do with that. These writings are the
voice of uninspired sinners, not the oracles of a holy God.
2b The King James and ESV follow the Geneva in using “oracles”. Tyndale and
Bishops have “word” or “words”. An “oracle” is a person or agency considered to be a
source of wise counsel or prophetic opinion. It may also be a revealed prediction or
precognition of the future that is spoken through another object. This would certainly
apply to the living word of God.
“Profane writers make this word to signify the answer that was given by the
demons, or heathen gods; and yet the Holy Ghost doth not disdain to make use of this
word, (as well as divers others), though abused to heathenish superstition (Matthew
Poole, Commentary on the Whole Bible).”
**************************************************************************************************
14. What If Some Do Not Believe? 3:3-4
3:3 For what if some did not believe?a-aorist shall their unbeliefb make the faithc of
God without effect?d-future
3a This is a question that Calvinists also ask but cannot find an answer for. We who
believe our Bible say that it is God's will for all men to be saved, although we realize that
not all will be saved. The Calvinist, with his doctrinal bias, asks "Well, if God wants all
men to be saved, then is His plan defeated unless all men are saved?" Of course not!
Paul says the same thing when asked if God's plan for Israel was thwarted because
some of them did not believe. This question is also the basis for Covenant Theology.
The Jews did not believe. Does that make the faith of God of no effect? Is God done
forever with Israel? Did God transfer the kingdom promises to the Church? Paul says
"God forbid" in 3:4a. The unbelief of the Jews has not altered the Abrahamic or Davidic
97
Covenants one bit. God still intends to return to Israel and to use them as He promised
to and to set up the Millennial Kingdom as He promised regardless of Israel's unbelief.
All Israel will be saved eventually at the end of the Tribulation, so this faith will be
vindicated in the end. But these promises and covenants God made to Israel are
unconditional and cannot be disannulled by the unbelief of man.
The basic idea behind this question is that the Jews thought that unbelief actually
enhanced God’s faithfulness and therefore should be encouraged. It was a good thing
to do a bad thing because the sin would enhance the good response of God. Would the
unfaithfulness of some make God unfaithful? God forbid! Therefore, God would be
faithful even if some were unfaithful, and that’s a good thing! But what twisted logic!
God is never unfaithful and He never goes back on His Word. God had given promises
to Israel but the fact that He gave such promises did not mean that Israel would escape
judgment by their unfaithfulness, even in the light of those promises and the faithfulness
of God.
3b The ESV mistranslates this as “faithlessness”, which is not the same as “unbelief”
You can still believe yet be unfaithful, lazy, unreliable.
3c The Tyndale and Coverdale have “promises”. Why? The Greek here is “pistiv
pistis”. The ESV waters it down to “faithfulness”. As a rule, a longer cognate of a word
has a weaker and diluted meaning from the root, so “faithfulness” would be a weaker
rendering than “faith”.
3d “Some will say, "If So-and-so, and So-and-so do not believe the gospel, then religion
is a failure." We have read of a great many things being failures nowadays. A little time
ago, it was a question whether marriage was not a failure. I suppose that, by-and-by,
eating our dinners will be a failure, breathing will be a failure, everything will be a failure.
But now the gospel is said to be a failure. Why? Because certain gentlemen of
professed culture and supposed knowledge do not believe it. Well, dear friends, there
have been other things that have not been believed in by very important individuals, and
yet they have turned out to be true. I am not quite old enough to remember all that was
said about the introduction of the steam-engine, though I remember right well going to
see a steam-engine and a railway-train as great wonders when I was a boy. Before the
trains actually ran, all the old coachmen, and all the farmers that had horses to sell,
would not believe for a moment that an engine could be made to go on the rails, and to
drag carriages behind it; and in parliament they had to say that they thought they could
produce an engine that could go at the speed of eight miles an hour. They dare not say
more, because it would have been incredible if they did. According to the wise men of
the time, everything was to go to the bad, and the engines would blow up, the first time
they started with a train. But they did not blow up, and everybody now smiles at what
those learned gentlemen (for some of them were men of standing and learning)
ventured then to say. Look at the gentlemen who now tell us that the gospel is a failure.
They are the successors of those who have risen up, one after the other; whose
principal object has been to refute all that went before them. They call themselves
philosophers; and, as I have often said, the history of philosophy is a history of fools, a
98
history of human folly. Man has gone from one form of philosophy to another, and every
time that he has altered his philosophy, he has only made a slight variation in the same
things. Philosophy is like a kaleidoscope. The philosopher turns it round, and exclaims
that he has a new view of things…I have to say, with Paul, "What if some did not
believe?" It is no new thing; for there have always been some who have rejected the
revelation of God. What then? You and I had better go on believing, and testing for
ourselves, and proving the faithfulness of God, and living upon Christ our Lord, even
though we see another set of doubters, and another, and yet another ad infinitum. The
gospel is no failure, as many of us know (Charles Spurgeon, “God Justified, Though
Man Believes Not” in Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, 1892, volume 38, sermon number
2255).”
***************************************************************************************************
3:4 God forbid:a yea, letaorist middle optative God bepresent middle/passive imperative true, but every
man a liar; as it is written,b-c-perfect passive That thou mightest be justifiedaorist passive
subjunctive
in thy sayings, and mightest overcomeaorist subjunctive when thou art judged.dpresent active infinitive
4a "God forbid" is about a strong a negative statement as you can make. It is literally
“let it not be!” or “perish the thought!” Most commentators attack the phrase but all the
traditional translations use it, so it did not originate with the King James.
4b “it is written” Perfect tense- it has been written and it remains written, not to be
changed. This tense is common with this Greek word in referring to a divine truth that
has been revealed and preserved in Scripture. Perfect tense- it has been written and
remains written, not to be changed or altered. It is a completed action with continuous
results or the continuance of an act completed in the past. The components are always
a past action and continuous results. References to the Scriptures like this are often
presented in the perfect tense. "The just shall live by faith" is one of those unalterable
truths of Christianity. This perfect tense in reference to New Testament references to
Old Testament texts is used 62 times in the New Testament, 16 times in Romans (1:17;
2:24; 3:4,10; 4:17; 8:36; 9:13,33; 10:15; 11:8,26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3,9,21). This usage
of the perfect is a strong argument for the verbal and plenary preservation of the
Scripture, as the written Old Testament word stands forever. What about this unbelief
the Jews displayed toward the oracles of God? They received the Scriptures but it
didn't seem to do them much good spiritually. Their disobedience consisted in their
almost constant national obedience to those oracles. They also neglected them to the
degree that they nearly passed out of existence. By Josiah's day, only a single copy of
it was found to be in existence and it only survived because it had been lost in the
temple. Jewish pride in this possession of the oracles was also evident. Although they
possessed the oracles, the oracles had never possessed them.
With reference to the Jewish attitude toward their sin, the rabbis taught that all of
Israel was righteous. Even if a Jew was to be punished for his sin (highly unlikely
according to rabbinical tradition), that Jew would still eventually be saved and be given
eternal life. The rabbis were guilty of a form of Jewish universalism. Paul condemns
99
that idea and states that the Jews have no inborn immunity to judgment. If they fall
under the condemnation of God, they would not receive eternal life but would rather go
to hell just like any Gentile, regardless of the fact that they were Jews.
4c “as it is written” is also a quote from Psalm 51:4. Some commentators claim Paul
is quoting the Septuagint here. We view with great suspicion any translation of the Old
Testament into Greek prior to the Church Age. There is no reason to believe Paul was
quoting any B.C. Septaugint.
4d "When" they are judged, not "if". Certain judgment waits for the nation of Israel, just
like as for everyone else. Peter Ruckman gives his interpretation of this verse as
“Sinners are going to try to justify themselves at the White Throne Judgment, and, in so
doing, they are going to have to condemn God. Look at it, right smack in front of your
face is Job 40:8...God will “overcome” at that judgment by quoting His Book. Note the
“oracles of God” right in the passage (3:2) (Peter Ruckman, Salient Verses, page 247).”
Sinners are always trying to justify themselves and their sin and condemn God. Man is
very good at this. But look at the example of David in Psalm 51. He could have tried to
blame God for his sins of murder and adultery, but David, godly man he was,
condemned himself and justified God. David knew he had no grounds to try to
condemn God and justify himself, no matter how much his old nature wanted to try.
15. How Shall God Judge The World? 3:5-8
3:5 But if our unrighteousnessa commend present the righteousness of God, what
shall we say?future Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance?b (I speakpresent as a
man)c-d
5a “But if our unrighteousness…” Notice Paul did not say that our unrighteousness
would commend the righteousness of God, but says "What if..?" Even if our sin
commended the righteousness of God, would we escape judgment? Of course not! If
God uses us in spite of our unrighteousness and if our unrighteousness does not affect
His unconditional covenants and promises, is He then unrighteous if He punishes us for
that unrighteousness? If it doesn't affect His plans, then why should He judge us? Paul
rejects that question with another "God forbid" and stresses that God will judge the
world for their unrighteousness and that it is not connected with His plans. God's
holiness demands He take vengeance on the unrighteousness of man.
5b Coverdale weakens this to simply God “being angry” The Geneva has “punishes”
which is still not as good as “taketh vengeance”.
5c The Jews would appeal to exemption from judgment on the basis of "Our
unfaithfulness serves to commend the faithfulness of God, therefore we ought not to be
punished." According to this line of thought, Paul says the worse we are, the better, for
the more we sin the greater will be God's mercy toward us. What kind of spiritual logic
is that? If God did not punish Jewish sin, then how could He possibly be righteous and
100
just when He judged the rest of the world? If God would not punish Jewish sin then He
could not rightly punish Gentile sin, otherwise He would be rightly accused of showing
favoritism and "using two decks". Gentiles at the judgment could accuse God with
being unfair since He would have overlooked Jewish sin. If God overlooked Jewish sin
for no good reason, why should He not overlook Gentile sin? But God could not allow
such a thing as it would violate His holiness. The Jews could then not appeal to that
false hope that God would overlook their sin and not judge them.
5d "I speak as a man", or Paul says "I'm coming down to the same level as these
unregenerate Jews and am going to put it 'right over the plate, waist-high' so they will
not misunderstand what I'm saying to them". The ESV really has a weak rendering of
this as “I speak in a human way”. Blah! How is that supposed to be an improvement
upon “I speak as a man”?
***************************************************************************************************
3:6 God forbid:4a-aorist middle optative for then how shall God judgefuture the world?a
6a This question presupposes that God will judge the world, especially at the Judgment
of the Nations (Matthew 25) and the Great White Throne judgment (Revelation 20). The
Bema Seat judgment of 1 Corinthians 3, Romans 14 and Revelation 4 is not a judgment
of the “world” but only of believers. The Bema Seat (or Judgment Seat of Christ) is also
a different judgment in its character from the Great White Throne and the Judgment of
the Nations.
****************************************************************************************************
3:7 For if the truth of God hath more aboundedaorist through my lie unto his glory;
why yet am Ia also judgedb-present passive as a sinner?c
7a Emphatic.
7b ESV changes this to “condemned”.
7c Others would ask "if my unrighteousness is actually promoting the glory of God, then
why should God judge me as a sinner? After all, I'm helping Him and glorifying Him!"
What the Jew did not understand that God was using Israel in spite of their
unrighteousness and not because of it. Israel's unrighteousness in itself did not
promote the glory of God but was working around it instead. Unrighteousness itself
does not glorify God but rather how God uses it to eventually glorify Himself.
****************************************************************************************************
3:8 And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported,a-present passive and as some
affirmpresent that we say,)infinitive Let us doaorist subjunctive evil, that good may come?b-aorist
subjunctive
whose damnationc ispresent just.d-e
101
8a “slanderously reported” The same Greek word as “blaspheme”. Paul was being
blasphemed by his enemies since they were claiming he was saying something that he
really wasn't.
8b This entire attitude was based on the false premise "let us do evil so that good
may come". The Jew may have answered that God was using them more in their
supposed unrighteousness that He would have otherwise. "Let's sin so that God can
really glorify Himself in us!" Such attitudes display an ignorance of what really
constitutes the glory of God. God is not glorified by our sin, period. Israel, who was
inadvertently glorifying God by their disobedience in the calling out of the Gentiles would
receive no credit for the works of God in this situation, but they would be judged as the
sinners they were. Of course, Paul taught no such doctrine although his enemies
twisted his words to say such.
8c The ESV changes this to condemnation.
8d The moral is that no one should imagine themselves immune from God's judgment
for any reason. If you sin, you will be judged unless you accept the Gospel. God will
judge sin and no excuse will prevent it.
8e "let us do evil so that good may come""The mighty paradox of justification
(without works) lent itself easily to the distortions, as well as to the contradictions, of
sinners. `Let us do evil that good may come' no doubt represented the report which
prejudice and bigotry would regularly carry away and spread after every discourse and
every argument about free forgiveness. It is so still: `If this is true, we may live as we
like'; `If this is true, then the vilest sinner makes the best saint.’ (H.C.G. Moule).”
****************************************************************************************************
16. Both Jew and Gentile Guilty Before God 3:9-19
3:9 What then? are we betterpresent middle/passive than they?a No, in no wise: for we
have before provedb-aorist middle both Jews and Gentiles,c that they arepresent all under
sin;d-e-f
9a The ESV has “are the Jews better off?” which is not the meaning of the verse. The
ESV misses the comparison with the Gentiles.
9b “we have before proved” A forensic accusation. The ESV has a much weaker
“charged”. You can make a “charge” yet not “prove” it, as the traditional translations
have it.
9c Coverdale and the ESV have “Greeks” here but the other traditional translations use
“Gentile”.
102
9d “all under sin” And that includes the Virgin Mary! Paul begins to summarize
chapters 1 and 2. His premise is the Jews and Gentiles are both guilty of sin and both
would be judged by God. One group was not better in the eyes of God since they both
practiced unrighteousness and were guilty of sin. This is another slap at Jewish pride.
They thought themselves better than the Gentiles which they had no basis for.
Advantaged (3:1-4) does not mean better. This again shows the universal guilt of sin
since all men either are Jews or Gentiles.
9e A summary of the condition of fallen man (3:9-18):
1. They are all under sin- 3:9
2. There is none righteous- 3:10
3. There are none that understand- 3:11
4. None seek after God- 3:11
5. They have all gone out of the way- 3:12
6. They are all unprofitable- 3:12
7. None of them do good- 3:12
8. Their throat is an open sepulcher- 3:13
9. They use their tongues for deceit- 3:13
10. The poison of asps is under their lips- 3:!3
11. Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness- 3:14
12. Their feet are swift to shed blood- 3:15
13. They leave a trail of destruction and misery- 3:16
14. They do not know the way of peace- 3:17
15. There is no fear of God before their eyes- 3:18
9f “Not long ago, one of our missionaries, out in China, was attacked concerning the
Bible on this very ground. One of the learned men said to him, “This Bible of yours
cannot be as ancient as you say that it is, for it is quite clear that the next chapter of the
Epistle to the Nomads must have been written by somebody who had been in China,
and who had seen the habits and ways of the people here,” — so accurate is the Holy
Spirit, who knew right well what the ways and manners and secret vices of the heathen
were, and still are (Charles Spurgeon).”
****************************************************************************************************
3:10a As it is written,b-perfect passive There ispresent none righteous, no, not one:c-d-e
10a Verses 10-18 is one of the strongest in dealing with the depravity of fallen man.
10b “as it is written” Perfect tense- it has been written and it remains written, not to be
changed. This tense is common with this Greek word in referring to a divine truth that
has been revealed and preserved in Scripture. Perfect tense- it has been written and
remains written, not to be changed or altered. It is a completed action with continuous
results or the continuance of an act completed in the past. The components are always
a past action and continuous results. References to the Scriptures like this are often
presented in the perfect tense. "The just shall live by faith" is one of those unalterable
103
truths of Christianity. This perfect tense in reference to New Testament references to
Old Testament texts is used 62 times in the New Testament, 16 times in Romans (1:17;
2:24; 3:4,10; 4:17; 8:36; 9:13,33; 10:15; 11:8,26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3,9,21).
10c The universal condemnation of both Jew and Gentile is laid out in 3:10-20. Paul is
like a prosecuting attorney in the courtroom making his concluding remarks to the jury.
First, there are none who are righteous. No Jew is righteous. No Gentile is righteous.
No individual is righteous. No people are righteous. Every individual has sinned. This
is spoken of all unregenerate me, regardless of rank, station or income. Every nation
has sinned. The United States is no better in this regard than any other nation in
history, despite what those who substitute patriotism for Christianity as their religion
may try to maintain. Even Adam was not righteous. He was innocent, which was
simply untested righteousness, a test he failed.
It is interesting that Paul will use the Jewish scriptures, the Old Testament, that
the Jew put his hopes for righteousness upon, as the tool to condemn the Jew.
10d “there is none righteous, no, not one” And this includes the Virgin Mary, as she
was not righteous apart from Christ, despite anything the Church of Rome may try to
assert. The sin-guilt of mankind is universal- none are exempt. Also see Ecclesiastes
7:20.
10e Verses 10-12 are quoted from Psalm 14:3 and 53:1.
****************************************************************************************************
3:11a There ispresent none that understandeth,b-present participle there ispresent none that
seeketh afterpresent participle God.c
11a These are all quotations from Old Testament. Paul quotes their own prophets to
the Jews so that they might see what their own character was by nature. They could
not appeal that Paul was quoting Gentile writers or just pulling these vices out of thin air.
Paul would say , “as Gentile mouths have been already stopped by the descriptions of
their vices, you also, the favored people of God, have your mouths stopped by the
descriptions of yourselves taken from your own prophets.” Their own prophets and
Scriptures were condemning them, along with the Gentiles.
11b “there is none that understandeth” Neither Jew nor Gentile truly understood the
law or revelation of God. Paul will say in Ephesians 4:18 that their understanding is
“darkened”- no light.
11c “none that seeketh after God” We are all as brute beasts without the proper
spiritual understanding that would make us desire to seek after God. In reality, we are
seeking to get as far away from God as possible! No man in his natural state seeks
after God nor is there any desire to know Him on a personal basis. Men everywhere
have no desire for God and no craving to know His law. All men are running just as fast
as they can away from holy things. God reaches out to man and man bites His hand as
104
a ungrateful dog. Men were seeking their own false gods, demons and idols but did not
seek after the one true God. Men would rather seek after a lie than to seek for the truth.
A man who refuses to seek after his Creator, his Judge, his King, is neglectful of his
highest and most urgent duty- to seek out and learn of such a God and to honor Him as
such. Surely will God judge a man for his failure in this duty.
The only way fallen man will seek after God is through the prompting of the Holy
Spirit as He begins His work of conviction that will (hopefully) lead to the conversion of
the sinner. But it is God who starts this process. Fallen man does not start seeking
after God on his own volition.
“Moreover, my dear brethren, if we do not seek after God and do not find Him, in
the end we shall lose everything. Suppose we live in this world simply to hoard up
money? Is it a sublime thing to have it reported in The Illustrated London News that we
died “worth” so many thousands of pounds? What is the good of such a notice as that?
Or, suppose we gain honor and fame so that our names are handed down to posterity?
Will that charm the ear of Death, or keep a single worm from devouring our body in the
grave? What is the use of fame—the breath of men’s nostrils—when it is gained by
flattery, or by doing that which God would not have us do? Is there anything worth living
for except our God? To die without God, oh, what an eternal loss is that! To wake up in
the world to come and to have no Heavenly Father, to have no Advocate in the Day of
Judgment, to have no Rock of refuge to hide under in the Last Tremendous Day! O Sirs,
if you seek not God, you are, indeed, fools! I dare not use any milder expression than
that. We are all fools that we did not seek Him earlier, but if we permit age to tell upon
us and our God is still not sought, then write upon us that word, “FOOLS!” in capital
letters and speak it with an emphasis, for so we deserve to be described! The first thing
that a man who wishes to be accounted wise should do is to know his God and to be
right with his God (Charles Spurgeon, “The Greatest Folly in the World” in The
Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, volume 43, sermon 2545).”
****************************************************************************************************
3:12 They are all gone out of the way,a-aorist they are together become
unprofitable;b-aorist passive there ispresent none that doeth good,c-d no, not one.present
12a “gone out of the way” This is a good definition of sin. None of us walks in the way
of holiness but rather have taken the broad way that leads to the pit. None of us are in
the way of holiness and life. We are all unprofitable, spiritually worthless to God
because of our sin and unholiness. They are on the broad way that leads to destruction
and have forsaken the narrow way (Matthew 7:13). To the natural mind, this is
understandable. If one is traveling on the long trip of life, wouldn't it be easier to travel
on a 6-lane interstate rather than on a goat path? But the broad, easy way is the one
that leads to hell and is the path the majority of men travel.
12b “become unprofitable.” They are all unprofitable. They are bad figs that cannot be
eaten (Jeremiah 24:2). They are bad fish that are cast away (Matthew 13:48). They
are fruitless branches good for only feeding the fire (Ezekiel 15:2-6). A man without
God is a man who is not useful to God. Also see Paul’s comment in Philemon 11.
105
Strong’s #889 acreiow achreioô; to render useless, spoil, become depraved.
Used only here.
The ESV has “worthless” here which is not a good translation. You can be
“unprofitable” but still have some worth, or some potential worth. Just look at
Onesimus, in the book of Philemon, who once was unprofitable but wound up being
very profitable (Philemon 11).
12c None of us do any good. Any "good" we may appear to do is not good in a
spiritual, eternal sense. Even the good things a sinner may do are not motivated by
holiness but by self. With that improper motivation, our "good" is not good in God's
eyes. This is quoted from Psalm 14:1-3 and 53:1-3.
12d The word "good" in 3:12 is different than "good" in 3:8.
1. In 3:8, it's Strong's #18 agayov agathos; of good constitution or nature, useful,
salutary, good, pleasant, agreeable, joyful, happy, excellent, distinguished, upright,
honorable
2. In 3:12, it's Strong's #5544 crhstothv chrestotês; moral goodness, integrity,
benignity, kindness, profitableness, wholesomeness.
The difference is that agayov refers to something that is inherently good while
crhstothv refers more to a moral goodness.
****************************************************************************************************
3:13a Their throat is an openperfect passive participle sepulchre;b with their tongues they
have used deceit;c-imperfect the poison of asps is under their lips:d
13a Paul does not use flattering words, as those preachers do who go on about the
dignity of human nature or the glory of man. Man was once a noble creature when he
was created in the image of God; but sin blotted out all his dignity and degraded him
into the vilest of sinners.
13b “open sepulchre” Their throat is an open grave sending forth a corrupting stench,
waiting for prey and entrapping those who fall into it. And what is in this open tomb is
horrible to behold. These spiritually dead men were possessed with a dead throat.
Dead words proceeded through that grave of a throat which issued forth from a dead
heart. Nothing profitable comes from a grave. No life-giving words which engender to
spiritual life issue forth from such sepulchers.
13c “deceit” These are the kind of people who lie constantly yet are offended if they
are called liars. The poison of asps is under their lips. They have honey on their lips,
poison under them. Their words are poison which can only kill rather than to heal and
to impart life. Also see Jeremiah 9:3-5.
13d Verse 13 is made up of quotes from Psalm 5:9 and 140:3.
****************************************************************************************************
106
3:14 Whose mouth is fullpresent of cursinga and bitterness:b
14a The ESV has “curses” but that is not as good as “cursing”. “Cursing” suggests a
habitual practice by nature. But one can “curse” but not have a mouth full of “cursing” if
it is an infrequent occurance.
14b This is quoted from Psalm 10:7. Instead of being full of the Holy Spirit and having
words seasoned with salt and grace, their mouth can only spit out cursing and
bitterness. This is all you can expect from a spiritual rebel.
****************************************************************************************************
3:15 Their feet are swift to shedaorist infinitive blood:a-b
15a Romans 3:15-17 are quoted from Isaiah 59:7,8.
15b They run as fast as they can away from God and to sin. Instead of following after
peace and life and using their feet to promote the Kingdom of God, they use them for
murder. Even if a sinner never takes a life, there is murder in his heart toward someone
and would kill him if he thought he could get away with it. Life is cheap to the sinner
and they have no intention of obeying the sixth commandment forbidding murder. If it
suits them, they will inflict bodily harm. At the slightest provocation they shed blood.
These are the type of people who are ready to fight at the drop of a hat. They cannot
claim the blessing of the peacemaker of Matthew 5:9. Both Josephus and the Talmud
testify to the wide-scale practice of murder in Israel in Paul's day.
***************************************************************************************************
3:16 Destruction and miserya are in their ways:b
16a This is what they leave in their wake and these are the footprints they leave
behind. Not only are they miserable in their own sin but they seek to spread it to others.
After all, "misery loves company". A sinner is not happy unless he can corrupt else into
the same sin.
16b There are lots of variations for “misery” among the translations. Tyndale and
Coverdale have “wretchedness”. The Geneva has “calamity”. The Bishops and ESV
agree with the King James.
***************************************************************************************************
3:17 And the way of peace have they not known:a-aorist
17a They certainly are looking for peace and would like to find it but they cannot do so
since they reject the God of peace. They are ignorant of what true peace really is and
how to obtain it. These sinners wouldn't know peace if it came up and bit them.
Sinners, especially those in government and in the United Nations, think that if men quit
shooting at each other then they can have peace. But the primary peace Paul is talking
107
about is internal, peace in the heart and peace with God. This kind of peace no sinner
possesses or understands. And they cannot understand the peace of heart that a
Christian has.
****************************************************************************************************
3:18 There ispresent no fear of God before their eyes.a-b
18a This is quoted from Psalm 36:1. This is the root of the sinner’s problem. He has
no fear of hell, judgment, the Great White Throne or of God Himself. And since they had
no fear of God, they have no wisdom (Proverbs 1:7) since it is the fear of the Lord that
is the beginning of wisdom.
18b If we were to summarize the condition of the world in this fallen condition, we can
imagine a patient with a multitude of problems sitting in the examination room of a
doctor. As the doctor begins his examination, he gives him an IQ test but learns that
the patient has no understanding. He looks into his mouth but finds only cursing and
bitterness. He checks under the tongue and finds the poison of asps. He examines the
feet and determines they are swift in running to shed blood. The doctor then steps back
and begins to shake his head. His nurse cries out "Doctor, is there nothing that can
help this patient?" The doctor replies "There is only one hope for this patient. He must
be born again!" Our first birth resulted in so many spiritual birth defects as to render us
spiritually stillborn. The effects of sin cannot be cured in the human body. Hence, the
only way to escape the effects of sin is to die to that sin and to be born again by the
Spirit of God!
We realize that not every sinner sinks to these depths in his life. Some sinners
are almost respectable. But their hearts are black and corrupt and they have in within
their heart to sink to these depths of depravity. We must be careful not to put any
degrees on sinfulness. A sinner is a sinner and is guilty of sin no matter how
"respectable" he might be. He might say "I'm not as bad as most sinners and certainly
not as bad as Paul described me!" The problem is not how bad a person is but how
good is he? Does he have the righteousness of Christ? Are those sins forgiven? Is he
good enough for God? No sinner in himself is perfectly righteous as he must be in
order to enter heaven. God will not allow sin or imperfection into heaven so that sinner
cannot enter in without that perfect, divine righteousness imputed unto the sinner by
Christ through faith and belief. This is what the law cannot do. Even if a man decided
to keep the law and managed not to offend in any point, it would not impart unto him a
new, divine nature. He would still possess that fallen nature and would lack a divine
nature which can only be attained through the new birth. Nor would his obedience to
the law remove the sins he committed before his resolution to keep the law. The law
does not impart justification, holiness or that divine nature that every sinner so
desperately needs in order to see the inside of God's heaven.
****************************************************************************************************
108
3:19 Now we knowa-perfect that what things soever the law saith,present it saithpresent to
them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped,b-aorist passive subjunctive
and all the world may becomeaorist middle subjunctive guiltyc before God.d-e
19a “now we know” The perfect tense shows an absolute, concrete and "finished"
knowledge that is the fruit of a long study and consideration, almost like delivering a
verdict after long deliberation.
19b Including the Jews.
19c The Tyndale uses “subdued” and Coverdale has “be debtor”. Geneva has “be
subject to the judgment of God”. The Bishops has “endangered” and the ESV uses
“held accountable”. The King James is more direct- guilty!
19d What is the law's relation to man's condition? The Law will condemn him and strip
him of any defense before God. This is what the law does. It can only bring
condemnation but it cannot justify. It was never meant to justify the sinner but rather
was designed to place the sinner in a corner where he would come to realize that his
good works, his religion and his nationality (if he is a Jew- or an American!) will not save
him. The law takes away his hope so that he will be forced to cry out to God and God
alone for help and to rely on justification by faith apart from works to save him.
19e “all the world may become guilty before God” A legal idea, like the effect of
overwhelming evidence silencing any further testimony.
****************************************************************************************************
17. By The Deeds Of The Law Shall No Flesh Be Justified 3:20
3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justifieda-b-c-future passive
in his sight:d for by the law is the knowledge of sin.e-f
20a This might be a good place to make the distinction between pardon and
justification. According to Charles Hodge, pardon is "the remission of punishment"
while justification is the "declaration that no ground for the infliction of punishment
exists". The sinner simply doesn't need pardon, he needs divine justification! Pardon is
outward justification while divine justification through the new birth is inward justification.
"Justification involves two things: first, making a man inwardly just; and secondly,
acknowledging him to be so (Hodge)." To justify a man is not to make a man inwardly
holy but to declare him to be so, to acknowledge that there are no grounds of
condemnation in him and there can no case be made against him.
“Justified” is Strong’s #1344, dikaiow dikaioô. In Classical Greek, it has the
idea of “to make right, make anyone righteous by permitting such a one to bear for
himself his condemnation, judgment, punishment or chastisement.” The word is used
meaning “to do justice or to defend the right of anyone, irrespective of the fact that that
defense may prove the person guilty or innocent”. In the New Testament, it has the
109
idea of “to set forth as righteous, justify as a judicial act.” The New Testament usage is
to persons only, not truths or situations, as the classical meaning could include.
Summary of Justification:
1. It is promised in Christ- Isaiah 45:25; 53:11
2. It is an act of God- Isaiah 50:8; Romans 8:33
3. Under the law, perfect obedience is required- Leviticus 18:5; 2:13; 10:5; James
2:10
4. Under the law, it cannot be attained by man- Job 9:2,3,20; 25:4; Psalm 130:3;
143:2; Romans 3:20; 9:31,32
5. Under the gospel, it is not attained by works- Acts 13:39; Romans 3:28; 8:3;
11:6; Galatians 2:14-21; 3:11; 5:4
6. Under the gospel, it is by faith alone- John 5:24; Acts 13:39; Romans 3:30;
5:1; Galatians 2:16
7. It is by grace- Romans 3:24; 4:16; 5:17-21
8. It is in the name of Christ- 1 Corinthians 6:11
9. It is by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ- Isaiah 61:10; Jeremiah
23:6; Romans 3:22; 5:18; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21
10. It is by the blood of Christ- Romans 5:9
11. It is by the resurrection of Christ- Romans 4:25; 1 Corinthians 15:17
12. It frees from condemnation- Isaiah 50:8,9; 54:17; Romans 8:33,34
13. There is a blessedness associated with it- Psalm 32:1,2; Romans 4:6-8
14. It entitles us to an inheritance- Titus 3:7
15. It ensures glorification- Romans 8:30
16. The wicked shall not be justified- Exodus 23:7
17. It excludes boasting- Romans 4:2
18. Does not nullify the law- Romans 3:30,31; 1 Corinthians 9:21
20b “no flesh be justified” The law negatively considered- it was never designed to be
used for the purposes of justification. See also Psalm 143:2.
20c In Romans 3:20 Paul says that justification is not of works.
In Romans 3:27 Paul says that justification is not of works.
In Romans 3:28 Paul says that justification is apart from works.
In Romans 4:2,6 Paul says that justification is not of works.
In Romans 9:11 Paul says that election is not of works.
In Romans 9:32 Paul says that righteousness is not of works.
In Romans 11:6 Paul says that election is not of works.
In Galatians 2:16 Paul says that justification is not of works.
In 2 Timothy 1:9 Paul says that God's salvation and calling are not according to works.
In Titus 3:5 Paul says that salvation is not of works.
Do you get the “drift” about works yet?
20d The Tyndale defines this by inserting “God” into the text, but “theos” is not in the
text, so this would be more of an interpretation than a translation.
110
20e “is the knowledge of sin” The law positively considered- it was designed to
define sin and condemn men as sinners. The law was never given to save men or to
justify men, but to define sin and to enlighten men as to what sin is. But when you use
the law rightly, it has a good ministry to us.
20f “All the law does, is to show us how sinful we are. Paul has been quoting from the
sacred Scriptures; and truly, they shed a lurid light upon the condition of human nature.
The light can show us our sin; but it cannot take it away. The law of the Lord is like a
looking-glass. Now, a lookingglass is a capital thing for finding out where the spots are
on your face; but you cannot wash in a looking-glass, you cannot get rid of the spots by
looking in the glass. The law is intended to show a man how much he needs cleansing;
but the law cannot cleanse him. “By the law is the knowledge of sin.” The law proves
that we are condemned, but it does not bring us our pardon (Charles Spurgeon).”
****************************************************************************************************
18. Righteousness By Faith and Grace 3:21-24
3:21a But nowb the righteousness of God without the lawc is manifested,d-perfect
passive
being witnessedpresent passive participle by the lawe and the prophets;f-g
21a Beginning in verse 21 and continuing to the end of the chapter, the key word is
“righteousness”.
v.21-righteousness;
v.22-righteousness;
v.24-justified;
v.25-righteousness;
v.26-righteousness, just, justifier
21b “But now…” Paul has painted a very gloomy and hopeless picture of the human
condition. But he is not going to leave us in the dark. The diagnosis has been made.
Now the cure is described! The “But…” here marks a dramatic switch from the gloomy
diagnosis to the hopeful cure.
21c “the righteousness of God without the law” A strong emphasis in the Greek that
this righteousness has no association with the law at all.
The Coverdale gives an unusual addition of “not adding to the law” that no other
translation uses.
21d This salvation is “manifested” by God. It is not of human origin nor does it rest on
human reason, intellect or effort. The answer to man’s sin is wholly divine, given of
manifestation by God.
111
21e “witnessed by the law” Even the law itself declares that it cannot save or justify!
Yet how many ignore the testimony of the law to itself and try to make it say something
it never said or do something it never claimed it could do!
21f What Paul is saying here is no novelty as it is also discussed in the law and by the
Old Testament prophets. Righteousness for the sinner is made available without the
Law as witnessed by the Old Testament. The Passover, the mercy seat, the brazen
serpent, the city of refuge and not the law all testified to the workings of grace, mercy
and belief on the behalf of the Old Testament sinner seeking justification. The prophets
also witnessed to this as not a one of them ever said "Keep the law and you'll be
saved". They rather emphasized the necessity of belief and faith for justification. Even
the law itself contains no statement that if it is kept then God will impute righteousness.
21g “If you put believers under law, you must put their federal Head, Christ, back under
law; for "as He is, even so are we in this world." To do this you must reverse Calvary,
and have Christ back again on earth "under law." For law, we repeat, was not given to a
heavenly company, but to an earthly nation. Scripture says it was to redeem that earthly
people (Israel) who were under law, that Christ was "born under the Law" (Galatians
4:4). You must thus, if you are "under law," be joined to a Christ belonging to Israel, a
flesh and blood Christ; and must consent to be an Israelite--to which nation He was
sent. But alas! You find that such a Christ is not here! That He said He must "abide
alone,"--like the grain of wheat unless it "fall into the ground and die." To an earthly,
Jewish Christ, you therefore cannot be united. And so your vain hope of having Moses
and Christ is wholly gone. Therefore you must be united with a Risen Christ, or with
none at all! But if to a Risen Christ, it is unto One who died unto sin (6:10); and those
(Jewish) believers who were under the Law died with Him unto it (7:4). And you, if you
are Christ's, are now wholly, as Christ is, on resurrection ground. (William Newell,
Romans Verse-by Verse).”
***************************************************************************************************
3:22 Even the righteousness of Goda-b which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all
and upon all them that believe:c-present participle for there ispresent no difference:d
22a The nature of this righteousness:
1. Its source is God, it is the “righteousness of God”.
2. Its substance is Jesus Christ, it is “of Jesus Christ”.
3. Its science is faith, it is “by faith”
4. Its scope is believers, it is “upon all them that believe” (Ian Paisley, An
Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, page 46).
22b As it did in verse 21, the Coverdale makes an unnecessary addition by adding “I
speak of…”. The Geneva does the opposite and whacks down the first part of the verse
to merely “to wit”.
112
22b “and upon all that believe” Not “upon all the elect”. The personal responsibility of
the individual is in view here, and how he can only receive this righteousness upon his
believing the gospel.
22c “for there is no difference” the 1599 Geneva Bible moves this phrase to 3:23.
****************************************************************************************************
3:23a For all have sinned,b-aorist and come shortc-present passive of the glory of God;d
23a Verse 23 is quoted in practically every evangelistic message preached today.
Since both Jew and Gentile are guilty of sin, they are each saved the same way. How?
"Unto all them that believe". Righteousness comes by belief in what is written in the
Scriptures and not by the works of the law. The universal plan of righteousness
corresponds to the universal need of man. All have sinned, regardless of nationality,
and have come short of the glory of God. If all have sinned then all must be saved.
Since sin is universal, righteousness must also be offered on a universal basis. Jew
and Gentile receive righteousness in the same way. By coming short of the glory of
God, men have not lived up to the expectations that God has placed on them. God's
glory demands holiness from man. If measured alone the canerod of divine holiness,
man measures far short. He measures 9 inches to a yard and 12 ounces to a pound.
His sin is the hindrance which keeps him from measuring up to God's standards as
expounded in the law. Therefore, because of his sin, man has not attained unto the
glory and holiness of God. Justification before God is glory begun. Sanctification by His
Spirit is glory advancing. Glorification with Christ is glory completed (Colossians 3:4).
23b “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” This also includes the
Virgin Mary for she was a sinner just like the rest of us, despite any and all
pronouncements from the Church of Rome. The sin-guilt of mankind is universal- none
are exempt. This is the final verdict upon all mankind. Even the best of men are
altogether vanity (Psalm 39:11; 144:4).
The 1599 Geneva Bible has that we are all “deprived” of the glory of God. The King
James has a much better rendering.
23c “and come short” A good definition of sin- to come short of the holiness and
demands of God.
23d The Tyndale has this as “lack the praise it is of valor”. Coverdale has something
similar regarding “praise”. Geneva and Bishops use “desprived” and “destitute”
respectively. The ESV is the closest to the King James here.
***************************************************************************************************
3:24 Being justifiedpresent passive participle freelya by his grace through the redemptionb
that is in Christ Jesus:c-d
113
24a “Freely!” What a grand word, especially in the context of salvation! Justification
must either be wholly by grace or by works. Works and grace are as oil and water; they
cannot be mixed. Justification is not earned by works of the Law but is bestowed freely
on the basis of belief. Believe and justification can be yours free for the asking! The
agency of this free justification is the grace of God. This was made possible by the
redemption work of Christ on the cross. Christ died and purchased salvation for all who
will believe. It is given by the grace of God freely unto those who exercise belief.
We must emphasize salvation by faith alone. Salvation can never be dependent upon
works. If a man could earn his salvation, then why did Christ have to die? Why would
He go through that terrible suffering and death on the cross if a sinner could earn it? If
salvation could be earned then Christ died in vain, He died for nothing. His sufferings
and His death were all wasted!
The ESV really mangles the simple idea of “freely” with “by his grace as a gift”.
How is that wordy translation and improvement on all the other translations that ise
“freely”? Coverdale does use “without deseruynge” but the Tyndale before it did use
“freely”.
24b “redemption” Strong's # 629 apolutrwsiv apolutrôsis; from apo apo (Strong’s
#575) from, and lutrow lutroô (Strong’s #3084), to redeem; riddance, Christian
salvation, deliverance, redemption, the recalling of captives from captivity through
payment of a ransom. To whom is this payment, or ransom, made? Not Satan but to
the Father, Who has been wronged by our sin and whose law we have broken. God the
Father is the offended party in relation to sin so any payment for sin flowing from the
cross of Christ goes to the Father.
“redemption that is in Christ Jesus” Redemption and atonement are found only in
Christ and not in the law.
24c "Christ Jesus" whenever "Christ" comes first in this title of Jesus, it is to
emphasize the deity part of Christ, where "Jesus Christ" would emphasize His
humanity.
24d Four Aspects of Justification
1. Justification by grace (Romans 3:24)
2. Justification by blood (Romans 5:9)
3. Justification by faith (Romans 3:28)
4. Justification by works (James 2:24)
****************************************************************************************************
19. Christ Our Propitiation 3:25-26
3:25 Whom God hath set fortha-aorist middle to be a propitiationb through faith in his
blood,c to declare his righteousness for the remissiond of sins that are past,perfect
active participle
through the forbearance of God;e
114
25a “set forth” Set forth publicly.
25b “propitiation” Strong's # 2435 'ilasthrion hilastêrion; an expiatory (place or
thing), an atoning victim, the lid of the Ark (in the Temple), mercy seat, propitiation,
merciful, propitiation. "Propitiation"‘ mercy seat, where sin was dealt with blood. The
Greek word is "hilasteerion", translated "mercy seat" in Hebrews 9:25, which is the only
other place the word is used in the New Testament. This "propitiation" is a substitute.
Christ died in our stead for us. If we believe, then the work of Christ is credited to our
behalf. Christ died so we would not have to Someone must die for our sin. Either we
die or an acceptable substitute must die for us. Christ was that acceptable substitute
who died for the sins of the world. If we exercise faith in the work and person of Christ,
then His death which he suffered is imparted to our account. Because He died, we do
not have to. It is like a convicted felon on death row who is prepared to die. He has
plead guilty of his crime and is strapped into the chair. He deserves to die and
everyone knows it. At the last minute, the relative of the victim whom the condemned
man killed offers to die in the place of the convict! As long as he has no crimes of his
own to answer for, he may take the penalty of another. The law does not care who dies
for a crime as long as someone does, either the condemned or an acceptable
substitute.
This is wrapped up in the idea of God pardoning us from the penalty of our sins
and then justifying us from the reputation and condemnation of these sins. The
president may pardon a man of a vile crime but it is not within his power to justify him.
The stain of the crime remains upon the guilty. Only God can lift the stench of the act
from the man’s reputation and set him as though he had never committed that sin, or
any sin. This is the work of God, to both pardon and justify the believing sinner. Not
only that, but Christ takes not only the punishment of the sinner upon Himself but also
his guilt. In our courts, an innocent party may (I suppose) take the punishment for a
guilty party if the court would allow it. But there is no way that innocent party could
accept the guilt of the condemned party. But Christ takes both the punishment and the
guilt off the repentant sinner.
The Tyndale and Coverdale give the translation of “propitiation” as “seat of
mercy”. The Geneva uses “reconciliation” which really isn’t the same thing as
“propitiation”.
25c “faith in his blood” This also involves faith in the shed blood of Christ. A
bloodless soteriology cannot save. No literal shedding of blood, no salvation! We are
not saved simply by the death of Christ but by His blood. Ephesians 1:7 and Colossians
1:14 say this redemption is by the blood of Christ and our redemption was purchased
with this blood in Hebrews 9:12.
Again, the ESV takes a simple phrase “by faith in his blood” and mangles it to “by
his blood, to be received by faith”. This is no improvement from the simpler and more
direct King James.
25d The translations handle “remission” in a variety of ways. The Tyndale, Coverdale,
Geneva and Bishops all have the idea of “forgiveness”. The ESV uses “passed over”.
115
25e The ESV uses “divine forbearance” which is no improvement over “the forbearance
of God”. The King James leaves no doubt about whose forbearance this is, while the
ESV would leave you hanging.
****************************************************************************************************
3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might beinfinitive just,
and the justifiera-b-present participle of him which believeth in Jesus.c-d
26a This plan of salvation allows God to be just in justifying sinners. God's holiness is
not harmed nor is justice by the plan of salvation which involves faith and a blood
atonement. Any plan of salvation that violates the holiness of God will not work. This is
why salvation cannot be earned because God will not go into debt unto any man. Even
if a man could earn his way into heaven, it would not settle the sin problem. Is he
justified through the blood of Christ or not? Justification cannot be earned but must be
accepted freely without works. A thing cannot be given freely if it is earned. There is no
other way to attain this justification except by freely receiving it.
26b The Coverdale has “righteous maker” and uses “righteous” for “just” as well.
Everyone else uses “just” and “justifier”.
26c “the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus” “Does Justice come to you this
morning and say, “Sinner, you have sinned, I will punish you”? Answer thus—“Justice,
you have punished all my sins. All I ought to have suffered has been suffered by my
Substitute, Jesus. It is true that in myself I owe you a debt greater than I can pay, but it
is also true that in Christ I owe you nothing, for all I did owe is paid, every farthing of it.
The utmost drachma has been counted down, not a dolt remains that is due from
me to you, O you avenging Justice of God.” But if Justice still accuses and conscience
clamors, go and take Justice with you to Gethsemane and stand there with it. See that
Man so oppressed with grief, that all His head, His hair, His garments are bloody? Sin
was a press—a vice which forced His blood from every vein and wrapped Him in a
sheet of His own blood. Do you see that Man there? Can you hear His groans, His
cries, His earnest intercessions, His strong crying and tears? Can you mark that clotted
sweat as it crimsons the frozen soil, strong enough to unloose the curse? Do you see
Him in the desperate agony of His spirit, crushed, broken, bruised beneath the feet of
Justice in the olive press of God? Justice, is not that enough? Will not that content you?
“In a whole Hell there is not so much dignity of vengeance as there is in the
garden of Gethsemane. Are you not yet satisfied? Come, Justice, to the hall of Pilate.
Do you see that Man arraigned, accused, charged with sedition and with blasphemy?
See Him taken to the guard room, spat upon, buffeted with hands, crowned with thorns,
robed in mockery and insulted with a reed for a scepter? I say, Justice, see that Man
and do you know that He is “God over all blessed forever” and yet He endures all this to
satisfy your demands? Are you not content with that? Do you still frown? Let me show
you this Man on the pavement. He is stripped. Stand, Justice and listen to those stripes,
those bloody scourges, and as they fall upon His devoted back and plow deep furrows
116
there, do you see thong-full after thong-full of His quivering flesh torn from His poor bare
back? Are you not content yet, Justice? Then what will satisfy you? “Nothing,” says
Justice, “but His death.”
“Come with me, then, so you can see that feeble Man hurried through the streets!
Do you see Him driven to the top of Calvary, hurled on His back, nailed to the
transverse wood? Oh, Justice, can you see His dislocated bones, now that His Cross is
lifted up? Stand with me, O Justice, see Him as He weeps and sighs and cries—see His
soul-agonies! Can you read that tale of terror which is veiled in that flesh and blood?
Come, listen, Justice, while you hear Him cry, “I thirst,” and while you see the burning
fever devouring Him, till He is dried up like a potsherd and His tongue cleaves to the
roof of His mouth for thirst! And lastly, O Justice, do you see Him bow His head and
die? “Yes,” said Justice, “and I am satisfied. I have nothing more that I can ask. I am
fully content. My uttermost demands are more than satisfied…
But how, then, is it that Justice itself actually demands that every soul that
repents should be pardoned? It is so. The same Justice that just now stood with a fiery
sword in his hand, like the cherubim of old keeping the way of the tree of life, now goes
hand in hand with the sinner. “Sinner,” he says, “I will go with you. When you go to
plead for pardon I will go and plead for you. Once I spoke against you. But now I am so
satisfied with what Christ has done that I will go with you and plead for you. I will change
my language. I will not say a word to oppose your pardon, but I will go with you and
demand it. It is but an act of justice that God should now forgive.” And the sinner goes
up with Justice and what has Justice got to say? Why, it says this—“God must forgive
the repenting sinner, if He is just, according to His promise.” A God who could break His
promise were unjust. We do not believe in men who tell us lies. I have known some of
so gentle a disposition that they could never say, “No.” If they were asked to do a thing
they have said, “Yes.” But they have never earned a character for it, when they have
said “Yes,” and afterwards did not fulfill.” (Charles Spurgeon, “Justice Satisfied” in The
New Park Street Pulpit, volume 5, sermon 255).”
26d The ESV uses “has faith in Jesus” but this is not the same idea as “believeth in
Jesus”. When you believe in Jesus, it is done unto salvation. But many have “faith” in
Jesus, faith that He will give them a healing, a new car, a raise, etc. Unsaved people
have some degree of “faith in Jesus” in this way but that does not mean that they are
saved.
**************************************************************************************************
20. The Law of Faith 3:27
3:27 Where is boasting then?a-b It is excluded.c-aorist passive By what law? of works?
Nay:d but by the law of faith.e
27a We do not glory in our works in a grace-salvation but rather we glory in Christ who
makes it possible. If a man could earn salvation then he would brag. "Not me!" you
might say but you would. You would strut around heaven like a peacock and brag on
the fact that you were good enough to be in heaven because you earned it! Salvation
117
by works does not develop humility, holiness and spirituality but only pride. Men who
are trying to work their way to heaven are among the proudest men you will ever meet.
But the man who accepts the free gift of God has nothing to boast of except Christ.
Christ did it all! I did nothing except receive the gift! Christ did all the work, therefore
He alone gets all the glory. Salvation by grace robs men from boasting and rather gives
the glory unto God to whom alone it belongs.
Another reason behind the law then is to shut the boastful mouths of little men
who must boast of their goodness, morality and religion. There must be fewer things
that are more sickening to God than to hear sinners boast about anything, especially
about earning salvation. If sinners (and saints!) had a proper understanding of the law
and of their relation to it, they would fear even to utter a single word regarding their
works.
As a result of the Jew’s failure with respect to the law, any grounds for boasting
on his part have been stripped away by Paul’s arguments.
27b The Tyndale, Coverdale and Geneva all use “rejoicing” here. Did “rejoice” and
“boast” have a similar meaning 500 years ago? “Boasting” can’t really have the modern
idea of rejoicing because Paul is forbidding it here, and why would he ever forbid our
rejoicing in God?
27c “it is excluded” “A particularly vivid use of the aorist tense. It was excluded by the
coming in of the revelation of righteousness by faith (M.R. Vincent, Word Studies in the
New Testament, 3:49).”
27d In Romans 3:20 Paul says that justification is not of works.
In Romans 3:27 Paul says that justification is not of works.
In Romans 3:28 Paul says that justification is apart from works.
In Romans 4:2,6 Paul says that justification is not of works.
In Romans 9:11 Paul says that election is not of works.
In Romans 9:32 Paul says that righteousness is not of works.
In Romans 11:6 Paul says that election is not of works.
In Galatians 2:16 Paul says that justification is not of works.
In 2 Timothy 1:9 Paul says that God's salvation and calling are not according to works.
In Titus 3:5 Paul says that salvation is not of works.
27e “law of faith” Righteousness comes by the Law of Faith not by the Law of Works
(Mosaic Law). Law of Faith says to be justified; the sinner must put faith in the work
and person of Christ and rely not on his own works. To the contrary, the Law of Worksto be justified, the sinner must do certain things. God never made that kind of bargain
with a sinner under the Law of Works. A sinner who is trying to earn salvation under the
Law of Works made a deal with God that God never agreed to. In order for a contract to
be valid, both parties must sign it. The Contract of the Law of Works may carry the
signature of the sinner but does not have God's signature. That renders it null and void.
Such is the Law of Works- it is null and void in the salvation transaction. God rejects it
because it only puffs up the sinner as he earns his salvation. Such a plan of salvation
118
would glorify the Lord but it would glorify the sinner. Such cannot be the case and it
must be rejected.
***************************************************************************************************
21. Paul's Conclusion- Justification By Faith Alone 3:28
3:28 Therefore we concludea-present middle/passive that a man is justifiedpresent passive infinitive
by faith without the deeds of the law.b-c
28a Here is Paul’s grand conclusion, the grand summary in one sentence of 16 words.
Salvation by faith without the deeds of the law, plain and simple.
Paul is making a summary conclusion here, so “we conclude” is the strongest
translation. Tyndale has “suppose” and Coverdale and Bishop’s both have “hold”
28b Again, repeating from verses 20 and 27 (because it is so important and repetition
is the key to learning!):
In Romans 3:20 Paul says that justification is not of works.
In Romans 3:27 Paul says that justification is not of works.
In Romans 3:28 Paul says that justification is apart from works.
In Romans 4:2,6 Paul says that justification is not of works.
In Romans 9:11 Paul says that election is not of works.
In Romans 9:32 Paul says that righteousness is not of works.
In Romans 11:6 Paul says that election is not of works.
In Galatians 2:16 Paul says that justification is not of works.
In 2 Timothy 1:9 Paul says that God's salvation and calling are not according to works.
In Titus 3:5 Paul says that salvation is not of works.
28c The ESV makes another unnecessary change, from “without the works of the law”
to “apart from works of the law”. There is nothing wrong with the King James rendering
and this change is unwarranted.
***************************************************************************************************
22. The Universality of Justification By Faith 3:29-30
3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles?a Yes, of the
Gentiles also:b-c
29a Coverdale uses “heathen”.
29b This plan of salvation of justification by faith without the deeds of the law is for both
Jew and Gentile. There is only one plan of salvation for all. There is not a separate
plan of salvation for both Jew and Gentile. A Jew must be saved in the same fashion as
a Gentile. What a blow to Jewish nationalistic pride! He is placed on the same level as
the Gentile dog! He has to enter the same gate as the Gentile. No wonder so many
Jews reject Christ- they cannot stomach this thought!
119
29c This strikes against the “Two Covenant Theory” held by some Charismatics that
teaches that Jews can be saved by keeping the law while Gentiles must be saved by
faith. No, no. He is a God of both Jew and Gentile and is one God with one plan of
salvation. Paul stresses that not even a Jew can be justified by keeping the law and
that since both Jew and Gentile have the same God, then they must also have the
same plan of salvation. In 3:30, it is clear- God shall justify the circumcision (Jews) by
faith, not by the works of the law. This is identical with God’s dealing with the Gentiles.
There are not two plans of salvation for Jew and Gentile but only one plan of salvation
for all.
************************************************************************************************
3:30 Seeing it is one God,a which shall justifyfuture the circumcision by faith, and
uncircumcision through faith.b
30a The ESV reverses the phrase to “God is one” which makes us uncomfortable, as
that is New Age terminology.
30b Notice the prepositions. The Jews are justified BY faith while the Gentiles are
justified THROUGH faith. It is by faith for both groups but their relationship to this
saving faith seems to be different. What exactly is this? The Jew is justified BY (ek)
while the Gentile is justified THROUGH (dia) faith. “’Ek’ applied to Jews as already long
in possession of faith; ‘dia’ to the Gentiles, as having but recently obtained it. Jews born
heirs to faith; to the Gentiles faith something new. 'Ek' indicating the ground or
foundation of justification; ‘dia’ the means or instrument (Thomas Robertson, Studies in
Romans, 1:237-238).”
**************************************************************************************************
23. Does Faith Void The Law? 3:31
3:31 Do we then make voida-present the law through faith?b God forbid:4a-aorist middle
yea, we establishpresent the law.
optative
31a “make void” Strong’s #2673 amarturov katargeos, from kata kata (Strong’s
#2596), an intensive and argew argeô (Strong’s #691), to be idle; to render inactive,
idle, useless, ineffective, make to cease.
31b This plan of salvation, based of faith and grace without the deeds of the law (or any
works) does not destroy the Law of Moses but rather establishes it. Salvation by works
would run contrary to that law. A man with a proper understanding of the law of Moses
would understand that he could never hope to keep that law. Faith, rather than works,
is the goal of the law. That is where the law is attempting to lead the sinner. Those with
imperfect understandings of the law keep trying to justify themselves by the deeds of
the law, so they wind up in hell because their efforts are futile. But salvation by faith is
the conclusion of the law.
120
Romans Chapter 4
Romans 4 is one of the greatest New Testament chapters on salvation by grace alone,
without the works of the law.
***************************************************************************************************
24. Justification By Faith: Abraham 4:1-5
4:1a What shall we sayfuture then that Abraham our father,b as pertaining to the
flesh,c hath found?perfect infinitive
1a The best way to teach is to do so by example. Illustrate your point. Paul will do so
by giving two examples of justification by faith apart from the works of the law in the
persons of Abraham (1-5) and David (6-8). Paul gives the strongest argument against
the Jewish concept of justification by works in giving the example of Abraham.
Abraham was the father of the nation, so a Jew should be very interested in God’s
dealings with him when it came to justification by faith, without the works of the law.
The Gentiles would be interested as well, to demonstrate that they could be saved
without the Jewish law.
1b Abraham is called "our father" despite the fact that Paul is writing to Gentiles, since
he is the father of all the faithful (Galatians 3:29). The Jews boasted of Abraham as the
father of their nation and their spiritual father. "Abraham our father" is still the common
phrase used by all orthodox Jews just as it was in the days of John the Baptist. But
John warned them "Say not within yourselves. We have Abraham to our Father
(Matthew 3:9)." That will not save the Jew (or anyone else) in the day of judgment. The
believing Gentiles also had a (spiritual) claim on Abraham as their spiritual father, as he
is of all the faithful.
1c The word order of the Geneva Bible makes it sound like Paul is asking what
Abraham found pertaining to the flesh, instead of the other renderings that have it
“Abraham, our father pertaining to the flesh…” It is not a good rendering.
****************************************************************************************************
4:2 For ifa Abrahamb were justifiedaorist passive by works, he hath-present whereof to
glory;c but not before God.d
2a Notice the “if” here- this is hypothetical since Abraham was not justified by works
but by faith, as “he believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness”
(Genesis 15:6). Does this contradict James 2. where James says that Abraham was
justified by works (James 2:21)? No. All apparent “contradictions” can usually be easily
explained by a careful reading of the Scriptures involved and by comparing Scripture
with Scripture. James links Abraham’s justification “by works” to his near-sacrifice of
Isaac in Genesis 22. It was at that event that Abraham justified his faith in God and His
promises by being willing to offer Isaac as a burnt offering. That work was the visible
121
manifestation of his faith in God. Paul is looking at Abraham in a more plenary view, not
just at the one event that James discusses.
2b The first Old Testament example of Old Testament salvation by grace without works
is Abraham. If God did justify anyone by works, you would think Abraham would have
been the one. After all, he was the friend of God and probably walked closer to God
than anyone in history. God used Abraham to establish the Jewish nation and he is the
father of all the faithful. Could he earn his justification by doing a certain amount of
works? Paul clearly answers in the negative. The reason again is to prevent boasting
on the part of the sinner who was able to earn it. If salvation could have been earned,
then God would be in debt to the sinner. God would receive no glory and Christ could
not be honored in such a plan. Such a plan of salvation would also render the work of
Christ on the cross as needless.
Besides, Abraham could not have been justified by works because the Law was
given 430 years after Abraham. If Abraham could have earned it, by what standard
would he have followed? There was no Law or any divinely inspired standard of
holiness. What works would Abraham have known to do in order to earn salvation?
2c “whereof to glory” Or boast or brag, which is something God hates (Proverbs 6:17).
The Tyndale, Coverdale and Geneva Bibles have this as “to rejoice” but I think the
Bishops, King James and even the ESV have the stronger reading here, as the context
is dealing with self-righteousness and the vain attempt to earn justification. Such selfrighteous men would tend to boast before God of their self-righteousness and works
more than simply rejoicing in them.
2d Abraham could boast before man of his righteousness but what would that
accomplish? You may impress man but that means nothing in terms of salvation. We
might have some human grounds to boast before man (although we ought not to do that
anyway) but we have absolutely no grounds or basis to boast before God regarding
anything.
****************************************************************************************************
4:3 For what saithpresent the scripture?a Abraham believedaorist God, and it was
countedb unto him for righteousness.c
3a Forget what the rabbis teach or what Jewish tradition says, what saith Scripture?
Most of them were not strong believers in the Scriptures anyway, preferring their
traditions over the teachings of Scripture. What saith the inspired writings of God? This
is the final court of appeal in all doctrinal matters, not tradition or what someone
"teaches". The Scripture says in Genesis 15:6 that Abraham believed God and it was
counted unto him for righteousness. This is the clearest Old Testament verse that
shows that salvation in the Old Testament was by grace through faith without works.
The Scripture here is the Old Testament since the New Testament did not exist at the
time of this writing.
122
3b As justification, imputed righteousness is reckoned in an aorist tense. The
reckoning of righteousness to the account of a newly saved man happens in an instant
as he is also justified in an instant. Both events happen at a singular point in time and
are totally and finally completed, not needing to be repeated or improved upon. Faith
was credited, or applied, to Abraham’s spiritual account, like putting money into
someone’s bank account.
3c This was Abraham's plan of salvation. This way of salvation is the same as ours,
but the object of Abraham's faith was different from ours. Abraham had to believe the
promises of the Abrahamic Covenant. That is all he knew. Christians believe the
Gospel, which is a later and fuller revelation than the Abrahamic Covenant. Once
Abraham believed God's revelation, God credited Abraham's account with
righteousness (like God putting money in Abraham's bank account).
We must make this distinction: salvation is always by faith and not by works. The
object and the conditions of that faith may vary from dispensation from dispensation.
Works may be required to stay saved in some dispensations (like the Tribulation or
Millennium), but never to be saved. God holds every man in any dispensation
responsible to the amount of revelation that he has at any given time. A man must
accept and believe that revelation in order to be justified.
The Old Testament is very clear that Abraham was not justified by works. By quoting
Genesis 15:6, Paul forces the works-oriented Jew to choose to either believe his (Old
Testament) Scriptures or the teachings and traditions of the rabbis, for he cannot hold to
both since they contradict each other. But how can a Jew really argue with this, seeing
Paul clearly quoted the inspired Old Testament scripture?
**************************************************************************************************
4:4 Now to him that worketh,present middle/passive participle is the reward not reckonedpresent
middle/passive
of grace, but of debt.a-b
4a There would seem to be two ways to be justified, either by works or by faith. One
works while the other doesn't. Salvation must be of grace and faith because if it were of
works, then God would owe people heaven. Then there is no grace and God receives
no glory. Salvation is all of grace and none of debt. We are in debt to God but He will
never allow Himself to go into debt to sinners. If we did earn justification (if such a thing
were possible) it would be a matter of justice and not grace to give that person eternal
life. Justice rather than grace! Who wants that? How much more valuable is grace
than justice! I would rather have God do something for me because He wanted to than
because He had to.
4b The Tyndale, Coverdale and Bishops have this as “duty”, as if God would have a
duty to award righteousness to Abraham through his works.
****************************************************************************************************
123
4:5 But to him that workethpresent middle/passive participle not, but believetha-present participle on
himb that justifiethc-present participle the ungodly, his faith is countedpresent middle/passive for
righteousness.
5a “but believeth” This is an important phrase and verse because there are those who
might raise an objection by saying "Isn't exercising belief work?" Not according to God.
He separates belief from works. They are not the same. Belief is not counted as a
work.
5b Both the Geneva Bible and the ESV had “believeth in him” while the other versions
have “believeth on him”. There is a difference with respect to that preposition. Anyone
can believe “in” Jesus in the fact that believe He existed, He was crucified, even that He
is the Son of God. But that person still may not be saved despite that belief in these
historical and theological truths. But believing “on” Jesus is a stronger term, implying a
believing unto salvation and a total dependence upon Him. When you lean “on”
something, you place your full weight upon it, confident that it will hold you up. This is
salvation, not just believing “in” Jesus but believing “on” Jesus. The prepositions, both
in Greek and Hebrew, are very important in drawing these distinctions.
5c JUSTIFICATION--A REVIEW
I. What It Is Not
1. It is not regeneration, the impartation of life in Christ; for although it is
"justification of life"—meaning God will give life to the justified, he is justified as
ungodly.
2. It is not "a new heart," or "change of heart,"—indefinite expressions at best,
but having in them no proper definition of justification.
3. It is not "making an unjust man just," in his life and behavior. The English word
justified, as we all know, comes from the Latin word meaning to make just or
righteous; but this is exactly what justification is not, in Scripture.
4. It is not to be confused with sanctification; which is the state of those placed in
Christ,--"sanctified in Christ Jesus"; and consequently the manner of their walk in
the Spirit.
II What It Is
1. It is a declaration by God in heaven concerning a man, that he stands
righteous in God's sight.
2. God justifies a man, on the basis or ground of the "redemption that is in Christ
Jesus" (3:24). See 5:6: We are "justified by His blood";--the blood the procuring
ground, or means; God the acting Person.
3. God who has already acted judicially, in pronouncing the whole world guilty
(Romans 3:19), now again acts judicially concerning that sinner who becomes
convinced of his guilt and helplessness, and believes that God's Word
concerning Christ's expiatory sacrifice applies to himself; and thus becomes "of
faith in Jesus" (3:26,): God's judicial pronouncement now is, that such a believing
one stands righteous in His sight.
4. Justification, or declaring-righteous, therefore, is the reckoning by God to a
124
believing sinner of the whole value of the infinite work of Christ on the cross; and,
further, His connecting this believing sinner with the Risen Christ in glory, giving
him the same acceptance before Himself as has Christ: so that the believer is
now "the righteousness of God in Him" (Christ). Negatively, God in justifying a
sinner reckons to him the putting away of sin by Christ's blood. Positively, He
places him in Christ: he is one with Christ forever before God! (William Newell,
Romans Verse-by-Verse).
Ten Aspects of Justification
1. The Need of Justification- Isaiah 64:6; Romans 3:10; 1 Corinthians 6:9,10
2. The Meaning of Justification. "To Justify" means "to declare or to pronounce
righteous." It is a judicial term (see Deuteronomy 25:1). The opposite of
justification is condemnation (Deuteronomy 25:1; Romans 5:16-19).
3. The Problem of Justification- Romans 3:26; 4:5- How can God be just and
still justify a sinner? Apart from Christ’s work on Calvary, there can be no
solution.
4. The Basis of Justification
1. The blood of Christ- Romans 5:9
2. The substitutionary death of Christ- Isaiah 53:6; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1
Peter 3:18. All the demands of Divine justice have been fully satisfied by
the finished work of Christ on the cross. God judged His Son (Romans
8:3; 2 Corinthians 5:21) so that He might justify the believing sinner
(Romans 4:5).
5. The Source of Justification- the grace of God- Romans 3:24
6. The Channel of Justification- "Justified by faith" (Romans 3:28; 5:1). How
does a sinner get this perfect righteousness? It is received by faith. The sinner
is justified by the death of Christ as to the basis and through faith as to its
appropriation. The free gift of God’s righteousness must be personally received
(Romans 5:17).
7. The Example of Justification- Abraham is the prime example used by both
Paul and James (Genesis15:6; Romans 4; James 2).
8. The Result of Justification. God’s perfect righteousness is put to my account
(Romans 4:3-5) and thus I am perfectly righteous, not in myself as I am still a
sinner), but "in Christ Jesus) (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Corinthians 1:30). God now
sees me just as righteous as Jesus Christ (1 John 3:7). Being justified I now have
peace with God (Romans 5:1) and no condemnation (Romans 8:1)
9. The Evidence of Justification. James says that Abraham was "justified by
works" (James 2:14-22). This is how we "show our faith" and this is how we
prove to others the reality of our justification.
10. The Hope of Justification- Romans 8:30 "whom He justified, them He also
Glorified." Glorification is guaranteed and in the mind of God it is already done!
****************************************************************************************************
125
25. Justification By Faith: David 4:6-8
4:6 Even as Davida also describethb-present the blessedness of the man, unto whom
God imputethc-present middle/passive righteousness without works,c
6a Here is the second example of Old Testament salvation by grace without worksDavid. Paul now lets David preach concerning justification by faith as he gives David's
description of the benefits of salvation by grace. David sums it up by saying "Happy is
the man who has righteousness imputed unto him without works". Could we then
conclude then that the man who was trying to attain this imputation by works is not
blessed? He has received no gift from God and no free favor from Him. It is one thing
to earn someone's favor but how much better is it to have that same person's favor
simply because they loved you without any works from you? This poor man tried to buy
the gift of eternal life. In so doing, he lost any joy that would have come with a free
acceptation of the gift of free justification.
6b “David also describeth” The Geneva Bible has “declared” which seems stronger
and more definite.
6c “impute” comes from Anglo-French imputer, from Latin imputare, from in- + putare to
consider.
6d Three Great Imputations:
1. Adam’s sin was imputed to the whole human race- Romans 5:12
2. The sin of mankind was imputed to Christ on the cross- 2 Corinthians 5:21
3. The righteousness of God was imputed to the sinner who believes on ChristRomans 4:6; 2 Corinthians 5:21
****************************************************************************************************
4:7a-b Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquitiesc are forgiven,aorist passive and whose
sins are covered.d-aorist passive
7a The man working for his salvation never has assurance of it. He doesn't know how
much he must do and for how long before he has it. How many works does he have to
do to earn justification? For how long? The man who simply believes doesn't have to
worry about any of this. He simply receives the assurance because he is trusting on the
work of God and not upon his own works. No wonder this man is blessed! The man
who is trying to earn his salvation never has the assurance his heart longs for and
therefore never has the joy of such assurance.
7b Verses 7 and 8 are quoted from Psalm 32:1,2.
7c “iniquities” Why does the ESV insist on replacing “iniquities” with the wordier
“lawless deeds”? This change adds nothing to the text.
126
7d "Sins are covered" is the idea of the Hebrew word "kaphar". This is the Old
Testament idea of the settlement of the sin question. David's sins were not taken away
until the death of Christ, just like any other Old Testament believer. But they were
covered by the blood of the sacrifice of the animals under the Mosaic economy. The
covering of the sins held the Old Testament believer over until the death of Christ took
them away forever. Ultimately, it had the desired effect of giving the joy of the
settlement of the sin problem to David, Abraham and other Old Testament believers
who followed them in faith. Now, sins are covered only by the blood of Christ.
This was important to David as he committed two sins, adultery and murder (2
Samuel 16) for which there was no sacrifice proscribed under the law. Both sins carried
the death penalty. The fact that David was not put to death for either sin showed the
mercy of God on his behalf, but it is clear that David was an exception in this case and
not the rule.
****************************************************************************************************
4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute6c-aorist middle subjunctive sin.a-b-c
8a David, a man under the Law, says blessedness comes apart from works- without
the Law! His sins are covered by the blood and without works of the Law.
8b David had personal experience with this, in his adultery and murder in the case of
Uriah and in his sinful census of the people. Under the Law, David was condemned for
his murder and adultery and there was no hope or “out” for him. He must die. But he
repented, cried out for mercy and threw himself totally upon the grace of God- and God
forgave him. That forgiveness was based solely and entirely upon the mercy and grace
of God, not on anything that David had done or could do to “earn” forgiveness for there
was absolutely nothing that David could do- except ask for mercy.
8c “There are three things in sin to be considered:
1. There is an offence against God, which is said to be forgiven.
2. There is a filthiness in sin, which is said to be covered.
3. There is guilt in it, which is said not to be imputed. (Matthew Poole,
Commentary on the Whole Bible).”
****************************************************************************************************
26. Justification Without Circumcision 4:9-12
4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcisiona only, or upon the
uncircumcisionb also?c for we saypresent that faith was reckoned6c-aorist passive to
Abraham for righteousness.
9a “the circumcision” The Jew.
9b “the uncircumcision” The Gentile.
127
9c How does this blessedness of which David spake come? By works? No, but by
having faith and righteousness reckoned unto us by belief. David was also a recipient
of the grace of God on his behalf for being spared the death penalty for his sins of
adultery and murder.
****************************************************************************************************
4:10 How was it then reckoned?6c-aorist passive when he waspresent in circumcision, or
in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision,a but in uncircumcision.b-c
10a “not in circumcision” Abraham could not have been justified by circumcision
since Abraham was declared justified in Genesis 15 and circumcision was not instituted
until Genesis 17. As many as 14-24 years could have passed between Genesis 15 and
17, depending on the various chronologies.
10b “but in uncircumcision” The Jews wouldn't like this! Their circumcision had
nothing to do with their justification before God! The Jews took pride in their
circumcision but forgot that it was merely an outward sign of the Abrahamic Covenant
and said nothing of their own personal relationship with God. Abraham received the
covenants and promises as a believing man, not as a circumcised man.
"Paul has turned the Jew's boast upside down. It is not the Gentile that must
come to the Jew's circumcision for salvation; it is the Jew who must come to a Gentile
faith, such faith as Abraham had long before he was circumcised...When Isaac was
saved he was not saved by his circumcision any more than was his father before him.
God never promised salvation except by faith. He never promised a perpetual
nationality except to circumcised men who believe" (Donald Barnhouse).”
10c How is righteousness reckoned? By circumcision or uncircumcision? Paul says by
uncircumcision. The outward act of ceremony is incompatible with the gospel of grace.
Jewish ceremonies cannot impart righteousness. Abraham was circumcised yet he
received his righteousness by belief (4:3) not by virtue of his circumcision. His
circumcision isn't even mentioned in Genesis 15. More importantly, he wasn't even
circumcised until Genesis 17, after God had pronounced him justified! This allows
uncircumcised Gentiles to also believe and receive the same righteousness as
Abraham had. Now the uncircumcised Gentiles could God their Father. Abraham
found this not by circumcision or any other religious rite or work, but solely upon the
grace of God. Religious works had nothing at all to do with this righteousness that
Abraham received, for it was bestowed upon Abraham without any such works.
The Jews would also violently object to any Gentile dog addressing the Almighty
in such affectionate terms. They believed such a "father-son" relationship was
restricted to Israel. The rabbis forbade proselytes to call God "Father".
**************************************************************************************************
4:11 And he receivedaorist the sign of circumcision, a seala of the righteousness of
the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might beinfinitive the father
128
of all them that believe,b though they be not circumcised;c that righteousness
might be imputed6c-aorist passive infinitive unto them also:d
11a “Sign” refers to the material token while “seal” has a religious import. “Seal”
Strong’s #4973 sfragiv sphragis; an instrument for sealing, a signet, signet-ring, a seal
as impressed upon letters or books for the sake of privacy and security, also a seal
impressed as a guarantee of something's genuineness as a motto or inscription, a
promissory token, pledge, proof
11b “all them that believe” Jew or Gentile- there is no difference. Nor does Paul say
Athe father of all those who are circumcised@ as circumcision has no bearing on one’s
state of salvation.
11c “they be not circumcised” This would bother the Jew. He could see Abraham
being the father of the Gentiles if they were proselytes, but Paul says that Abraham is
the father of Gentiles as long as they believe, regardless if they undergo circumcision
and become Jews.
11d “righteousness might be imputed…also” Do NOT try to run water baptism into
this! Absolutely nothing is said about equating circumcision with baptism. Paul is
talking about CIRCUMCISION and NOT baptism. Covenant theologians try to make
New Testament baptism (usually infant baptism by sprinkling) the counterpart of Old
Testament circumcision in saying that “both get you into the Covenant. Circumcision
gets the Jew into the Abrahamic Covenant while baptism gets you into the New
Covenant.” First, there is no New Testament verse to suggest such a doctrine and
second, Romans 4:11 certainly does not lend itself to such an application.
****************************************************************************************************
4:12 And the father of circumcisiona to them who are not of the circumcision
only,b but who also walkpresent participle in the steps of that faith of our father
Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
12a “father of circumcision” would be Abraham, to whom God gave the practice.
Abraham did not create the practice but he was the first one who was circumcised.
12b “not of the circumcision only” are Gentiles, who did not practice circumcision.
But this did not prevent them in sharing in the spiritual blessings of the Abrahamic
Covenant, since they “walked in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham”. That
is what determines the spiritual blessings and benefits- not physical circumcision, but
rather obedience to the laws of God and the proper practice and application of faith.
After all, Abraham received the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant before he was
ever circumcised, so the spiritual blessings of the Covenant were not dependent upon
circumcision. If you are going to imitate “Father Abraham”, it would be better to imitate
his faith and obedience instead of his circumcision.
**************************************************************************************************
129
27. Abrahamic Covenant Through Faith 4:13-22
4:13 For the promise, that he should beinfinitive the heir of the world,a was not to
Abraham, or to his seed, through the law,b but through the righteousness of faith.c
13a "Heir of the world" through the ultimate fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant in
the Millennium. It does not simply have reference to Canaan but all the earth, as has
been promised to the Jew through Abraham. Faith ushers in this Millennial kingdom
and the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant, not works.
13b “not…through the law” Since the law was not given at the time the covenant
and its promises were first given to Abraham and confirmed through Isaac and Jacob.
The law then had nothing to do with these promises.
13c “the righteousness of faith” The basis of the Abrahamic Covenant is not the Law
of Moses since the Law would not be given for another 400 years. How could anyone,
except a Jew wrapped in his dead tradition, think that the promises made to Abraham
through that covenant of Genesis 12, 15 and 17 were based on Abraham's obedience to
a law that would not be given for centuries?
****************************************************************************************************
4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void,a-b-perfect passive and
the promise made of none effect:c-d-e-perfect passive
14a “faith is made void” Works invalidate faith in terms of salvation- they cannot coexist and salvation cannot be by both works and faith- no mixture at all.
14b “made void” The Tyndale, Coverdale and Bishops translate this as “vain” while
the ESV uses “null”.
14c “the promise is made of none effect” There would be no need for a promise if
salvation could be earned. Works would destroy the promise. God promised
justification by faith. Any plan of justification based on works would destroy those
promises God made. The law works wrath and brings transgression, not justification.
The law makes men miserable as they come to a realization of their sin and rebellion. It
cannot be used to impart faith and promise as grace and belief can. The law was not
designed to do that which faith can do.
14d “none effect” Strong’s #2673 kamarturov katargeos, from kata kata (Strong’s
#2596), an intensive and argew argeô (Strong’s #691), to be idle; to render inactive,
idle, useless, ineffective, make to cease.
14e The verbs in this verse are all in the perfect tense, having an absolute and
irrevocable action. Faith and the promises of God made by grace are absolutely and
130
totally rendered void if justification was by the works of the law, as works and faith/grace
cannot co-exist in relation to salvation.
****************************************************************************************************
4:15 Because the law workethpresent middle/passive wrath: for where no law is,present there
is no transgression.a
15a "Where no law is, there is no transgression". The law defines sin. How do we
know murder is wrong? It simply is and civilizations from the dawn of time acknowledge
it to be so. But now that a prohibition to murder has been passed down by God in the
law, it is now not just wrong but illegal, and can be punished as a crime. If there were
no written law, there would be no sin since there would be no definition of sin. How
could you judge something if you couldn't even define the crime? But now that we have
the law, we know exactly what sin is and what acts are defined as sin. The law is then
given not only to define sin but to make sin known. This way, men can understand the
sinfulness of sin and flee to God for forgiveness and justification.
****************************************************************************************************
4:16 Therefore it is of faith,a that it might be by grace;b to the end the promise
might be surec to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also
which ispresent of the faith of Abraham;d who ispresent the father of us all,e-f
16a “Faith indeed might be described as a kind of sixth sense. It’s function is to make
tangible and real the verities of the spiritual world (John Phillips, Exploring Romans,
page 83).”
16b Salvation, if it is to be of grace, must then be of faith and grace to be able to extend
the promise to all seed (including believing Gentiles). If salvation were of the Law, the
Gentiles would be shut out again since they did not have the Law. This way of
justification by faith makes Abraham the father of all who believe, not just of Jews.
16c “sure” Strong’s #949 bebaian bebaian, stable, fast, firm, meaning the opposite of
“being made of none effect” (M. R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament).
16d “faith of Abraham” And what faith he had! Abraham did not consider anything
beyond the promise and the God who gave it! The difficulties in His promises and
covenants were for God to consider, not for Abraham!
What did Abraham have? A covenant with its attendant blessings in Genesis 12,
repeated in Genesis 15. He also had a promise that Sarah would not only bear him a
son (Ishmael did not figure into this) but that his seed would be as the sands of the sea
for number. Abraham knew that God had made the world out of nothing and that He
supported all things by the word of His power and, therefore, he felt that nothing was too
hard for Him! His own advanced years and that of Sarah were of no consequence.
Abraham knew that God is not a man, that He should lie, nor the son of man that He
should repent. He was quite certain that the Lord had not spoken beyond His abilities to
131
perform, but that what He had promised He was able to perform. It belongs to man to
speak more than he can do. Many times, man’s mouth over-promises and cannot
deliver, but with the Lord it is never so. Abraham believed in the immutability, truth and
power of the living God, and looked for the literal fulfillment of His words! All this strong,
unstaggering faith which glorified God rested upon the Lord alone. Abraham was given
no signs, marks, tokens, or indications to validate or confirm these promises. He had
no church, no pastor, no Bible, no Christian library or Christian radio to build up his faith.
All Abraham had was the word of God Himself. That was good enough. Jehovah has
said it and that He will make it good!
Another example of that faith was the test God gave Abraham in Genesis 22.
God told Abraham to take Isaac, his promised son, and offer him for a burnt offering.
That command made no sense to reason. Kill the son of the covenant, the miracle
child? Wouldn’t that undo the covenant and the promises? But God had commanded
it. The only thing Abraham could conclude out was that God would resurrect Isaac from
the dead to maintain his promises! That was faith talking, shouting out reason.
16e “who is the father of us all” Believing Jews and Gentiles- there is no difference as
Abraham is the spiritual Father of us all, regardless of circumcision. If you believe, you
have a claim on Abraham as your father. This applies to Jews and Gentiles but the
Moslems have no such claim, although they claim Ishmael as their link to Abraham.
Since they do not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, they can make no claim
to being children of Abraham.
16f The ESV handles the verse very poorly and reads in a very clunky and wordy
manner.
***************************************************************************************************
4:17a (As it is written,b-perfect passive I have madeperfect thee a fatherc of many nations,d)
before him whom he believed,aorist even God, who quickenethpresent participle the dead,
and callethpresent participle those things which bepresent not as though they weree-present
participle
17a Verses 17-21 summarizes Abraham's faith and how it led to his justification. Paul
uses the example of Abraham believing that he would have a son although he and
Sarah were too old to bear children.
Physically they were unable to have children but they believed God would fulfill His
promise for a son and God delivered. Abraham believed that part of the Covenant and
was justified for it. He staggered not at the promises of God (even for the impossible)
although he had every reason to but was strong in faith. He was fully persuaded that
God would and could do what He promised.
17b “as it is written” Perfect tense- it has been written and remains written, not to be
changed or altered. It is a completed action with continuous results or the continuance
of an act completed in the past. The components are always a past action and
132
continuous results. References to the Scriptures like this are often presented in the
perfect tense. "The just shall live by faith" is one of those unalterable truths of
Christianity. This perfect tense in reference to New Testament references to Old
Testament texts is used 62 times in the New Testament, 16 times in Romans (1:17;
2:24; 3:4,10; 4:17; 8:36; 9:13,33; 10:15; 11:8,26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3,9,21). This usage
of the perfect is a strong argument for the verbal and plenary preservation of the
Scripture, as the written Old Testament word stands forever and continues to. God
made this promise to Abraham in Genesis 12,15 and 17 and nothing is going to alter it
and nothing is going to change God’s mind with reference to this covenant.
17c “I have made thee a father…” Quoted from Genesis 17:4,5.
17d The Coverdale has this a “heathen”.
17e “calleth those things which be not as though they were” In the context of Isaac
and the children that would come after him. At the time of God’s initial promise to
Abraham that he would have as many children as stars in the sky, none of them were
yet born and the human prospects for such children were extremely poor. Yet in the
mind of God, these children already existed, although none were yet born. But God, not
confined to linear time, can see these children in the future even if they do not yet exist
in our present.
****************************************************************************************************
4:18 Whoa against hope believedaorist in hope,b that he might becomeaorist middle infinitive
the father of many nations; according to that which was spoken,c-perfect passive participle
So shall thy seed be.d-future
18a The Tyndale and Geneva Bibles insert “Abraham”: for “who”.
18b “against hope believed in hope” Part of the Covenant was the seed and God told
Abraham that Ishmael was not that seed but that Sarah would bear him a son. Both
Abraham and Sarah were well beyond their child-bearing years yet God’s promise stood
and Abraham clung to that hope in the face of the physical impossibilities. Abraham
had no reason to hope for a son by Sarah except through the promise of God, and he
was not disappointed. None are disappointed who put their full trust in the Word of
God.
The Geneva is stronger than the King James in using “above hope” while the
Bishops has “contrary to hope” which is also stronger.
18c “that which was spoken” The promise God gave Abraham, the verbal Word of
God, which is all Abraham had to go on. He had no written Bible as we do today. He
could only hope in a verbal promise God gave him. He had less to base his hope on
than we do today, yet how much stronger was Abraham’s faith than ours is, even
though we are in a much superior spiritual situation than Abraham ever was in! We
have a Bible. Abraham didn’t. We had 6000 years of history to study. Abraham didn’t.
133
We have the Holy Spirit indwelling us. Abraham didn’t. We have a local church.
Abraham didn’t. We have biographies and sermon collections and hymnbooks to
strengthen our faith. Abraham had none of that. Yet our faith tends to be so much
weaker than Abraham’s and that is a serious rebuke to us. “Thus saith the Lord” should
settle all doubts.
18d “so shall thy seed be” is from Genesis 15:5.
****************************************************************************************************
4:19 And being not weakaorist participle in faith,a he consideredaorist not his own bodyb
now dead,perfect passive participle when he waspresent participle about an hundred years old,
neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb:
19a “not weak in faith” Abraham was weak in faith in the early years of his walk but
not after the crises of Genesis 17. The Tyndale, Coverdale and Bishops all use “faint”
in regards to this faith.
19b “considered not his own body…” The physical impossibilities were dismissed
from his mind when the hope and faith in God’s promise kicked in. Faith and hope
cannot co-exist with doubt. Neither did the deadness of Sarah’s womb bother him.
**************************************************************************************************
4:20 He staggeredaorist passive nota at the promise of God through unbelief; but was
strongaorist passive in faith,b-c-d givingaorist participle glory to God;
20a “staggered not” Abraham did not doubt, made no objection, was not
overwhelmed by the promise.
Strong’s #1252 diakrinw diakrinô; from dia dia (Strong’s #1223) separation and
krinw krinô (Strong’s #2919) to distinguish, decide, judge; to separate thoroughly, to
withdraw from, oppose, to discriminate, decide, hesitate, contend, make (to) differ,
discern, doubt, judge, be partial, stagger, waver. Used only here in the New Testament.
All the translations handle “staggered” differently. The Tyndale and Bishops use
the archaic “stackered”. Coverdale and Geneva use “doubted” and the ESV had
“distrust”. But we like the King James “staggered” as such faith did not “floor” Abraham.
20b This "strong faith" wound up giving glory to God. Faith and belief glorifies God.
Works unto salvation do not bring this form of glory to God.
20c In comparing belief and unbelief, John Bunyan wrote a good comparison between
the two in Come and Welcome to Jesus Christ: "Let me here give the Christian reader a
more particular description of the qualities of unbelief, by opposing faith unto it, in these
particulars:
1. Faith believeth the Word of God, but unbelief questioneth the certainty of the
same.
2. Faith believeth the word, because it is true, but unbelief doubteth thereof,
134
because it is true.
3. Faith sees more in a promise of God to help than in all other things to hinder;
but unbelief, notwithstanding God's promise, saith, How can these things be?
4. Faith will make thee see love in the heart of Christ when with His mouth He
giveth reproofs, but unbelief will imagine wrath in His heart when with His mouth and
word He saith He loves us.
5. Faith will help the soul to wait, though God defers to give, but unbelief will
snuff and throw up all, if God makes any tarrying.
6. Faith will give comfort in the midst of fear, but unbelief causeth tears in the
midst of comforts.
7. Faith will suck sweetness out of God's rod, but unbelief can find no comfort in
the greatest mercies.
8. Faith maketh great burdens light, but unbelief maketh light ones intolerably
heavy.
9. Faith helpeth us when we are down, but unbelief throws us down when we are
up.
10. Faith bringeth us near to God when we are far from him, but unbelief puts us
far from God when we are near to Him.
11. Faith putteth a man under grace, but unbelief holdeth him under wrath.
12. Faith purifieth the heart, but unbelief keepeth it polluted and impure.
13. Faith maketh our work acceptable to God through Christ. But whatsoever is
of unbelief is sin, for without faith it is impossible to please Him.
14. Faith giveth us peace and comfort in our souls, but unbelief worketh trouble
and tossings like the restless waves of the sea.
15. Faith maketh us see preciousness in Christ, but unbelief sees no form,
beauty, or comeliness in Him.
16. By faith we have our life in Christ's fulness. but by unbelief we starve and
pine away.
17. Faith gives us the victory over the law, sin, death, the devil, and all evils; but
unbelief layeth us obnoxious to them all.
18. Faith will show us more excellency in things not seen than in them that are,
but unbelief sees more of things that are than in things that will be hereafter.
19. Faith makes the ways of God pleasant and admirable, but unbelief makes
them heavy and hard.
20. By faith Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob possessed the land of promise; but
because of unbelief neither Aaron, nor Moses, nor Miriam could get thither.
21. By faith the children of lsrael passed through the Red Sea, but by unbelief the
generality of them perished in the wilderness.
22. By faith Gideon did more with three hundred men and a few empty pitchers
than all the twelve tribes could do, because they believed not God.
23. By faith Peter walked on the water, but by unbelief he began to sink.
Thus might many more be added, which, for brevity's sake, I omit, beseeching
every one that thinketh he hath a soul to save or be damned to take heed of unbelief,
lest, seeing there is a promise left us of entering into His rest, any of us by unbelief
should indeed come short of it."
135
20d “For a child to trust its father is natural, so natural that no one counts it a virtue.
How astounding is our moral perversity that we should be so far gone out of our right
condition of heart that we have to argue ourselves into believing our God—and even
then succeed not till the Holy Spirit gives us faith! It ought to be a very difficult thing for a
Christian to doubt his heavenly Father. In fact, it ought to be impossible, seeing that the
Divine Character is incapable of falsehood! Beloved, should we not have strong faith
who believe in a God whose very essence is pure truth? Where deception is
inconceivable, doubt should be impossible (Charles Spurgeon, “Unstaggering Faith” in
Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, volume 23, sermon 1367)!”
***************************************************************************************************
4:21 And being fully persuadeda-aorist passive participle that, what he had promised,perfect
he waspresent able also to perform.aorist infinitive
middle/passive
21a “fully persuaded” This would be a very strong term. Abraham was fully assured of
the promises of God because of his deep and strong faith. The Tyndale and Bishops
render this as “certified”.
There is a similarity between the object of Abraham's faith and ours: they both
involved belief in God giving life to the dead. Abraham believed that God would quicken
the dead womb of Sarah. The Christian believes that God would raise Jesus Christ
from the dead.
****************************************************************************************************
4:22 And therefore it was imputed6c-aorist passive to him for righteousness.
****************************************************************************************************
28. Abraham- Our Example of Faith 4:23-25
4:23 Now it was not writtenaorist passive for his sake alone,a that it was imputed6c-b-aorist
passive
to him;
23a “not for his sake alone” This was not just for Abraham’s benefit for the instruction
of all men, especially believers. His faith is to be example for all of us.
23b The Tyndale and Geneva both add the “righteousness” to the imputation (or
reckoning).
****************************************************************************************************
4:24a But for us also, to whom it shall bepresent imputed,6c-present passive infinitive if we
believepresent participle on him that raised upaorist participle Jesus our Lordb from the dead;c
24a This example of Abraham was not an isolated incident but is the pattern for the rest
of us. If we exercise the same faith in the revelation that we have, then the justification
136
which Abraham enjoyed can be ours, regardless if we are Jew or Gentile, circumcised
or uncircumcised.
24b “Jesus our Lord” This phrase, without the word “Christ” in the title of Jesus, only
occurs here and in 2 Peter 1:2. “Christ Jesus our Lord” is used in 5 verses (Romans
8:39; 1 Corinthians 15:31; Ephesians 3:11; 1 Timothy 1:12; 2 Timothy 1:2).
24c “that raised Jesus our Lord from the dead” That same divine power that
allowed Sarah to conceive at age 100 also raised Christ from the dead. But this also
shows the belief in the resurrection of Christ is vitally important for salvation. No man
can be saved if he does believe in the resurrection. We must believe on Him (the
Father) who raised Jesus from the dead.
****************************************************************************************************
4:25a Who was deliveredaorist passive for our offences,b and was raised againaorist passive
for our justification.
25a Tie this into 4:24b to see what we need to believe in order to be justified. Abraham
had to believe in the Abrahamic Covenant. We are not bound to that. Remember, we
said that all men must be justified by faith but the object of that faith varies. The
Abrahamic Covenant is certainly a part of what we must believe since it is contained in
the Bible, but Paul specifically mentions the following which is required of us to believe:
1. Believe on God the Father
2. Believe in the resurrection of Christ
3. Believe in the atoning and substitutionary work of Christ.
This is the focus of our belief in order for us to be justified by faith.
25b Christ was:
1. Delivered for our offenses
2. Raised for our justification
25c Only the Coverdale uses “righteousness sake” instead of “justification”.
**************************************************************************************************
Summary Concerning Abraham and his salvation:
1. How was Abraham saved? By faith and belief 4:3
2. When was Abraham saved? Before his circumcision, when he believed the
promises of God (Genesis 15:16)
3. Why was Abraham saved? That he might be the father of all who believe
4:11
Adam Clarke summarizes it this way: “FROM a careful examination of the Divine
oracles it appears that the death of Christ was an atonement or expiation for the sin of
the world: For him hath God set forth to be a PROPITIATION through FAITH in HIS
BLOOD, Romans 3:25. For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ DIED
137
FOR the UNGODLY, Romans 5:6. And when we were ENEMIES, we were
RECONCILED to God by the DEATH of his Son, Romans 5:10. In whom we have
REDEMPTION THROUGH HIS BLOOD, the FORGIVENESS of SINS, Ephesians 1:7.
Christ hath loved us, and GIVEN HIMSELF FOR US, an OFFERING and a SACRIFICE
to God for a sweet-smelling savor, Ephesians 5:2. In whom we have REDEMPTION
THROUGH HIS BLOOD, the FORGIVENESS OF SINS, Colossians 1:14. And having
made PEACE THROUGH the BLOOD of his CROSS, in the BODY of HIS FLESH,
through DEATH, Colossians 1:20, 22. Who GAVE HIMSELF a RANSOM for all, 1
Timothy 2:6. Who GAVE HIMSELF FOR US, that he might REDEEM us from all
iniquity, Titus 2:14. By which will we are sanctified, through the OFFERING of the
BODY of Jesus Christ, Hebrews 10:10. So Christ was once OFFERED TO BEAR THE
SINS of many, Hebrews 9:28. See also Ephesians 2:13, 16; 1 Peter 1:18, 19;
Revelation 5:9. But it would be transcribing a very considerable part of the New
Testament to set down all the texts that refer to this most important and glorious truth.”
Below is a summation of theological words that deal with the Biblical doctrine of
salvation:
1. Justification- a legal declaration that a man is just before God.
2. Redemption- the payment made for a man’s sins, where the man is
purchased by God from the domain of sin.
3. Propitiation- the price paid to God to satisfy His demands against the sinner.
The difference between redemption and propitiation is that redemption makes reference
to the payment made where propitiation is the payment that accepted by God that
appeases His judgment and wrath against the sin of that sinner.
4. Remission- the payment for sin applied to the account of the sinner where the
sin debt of the sinner is forgiven.
5. Expiation- the removing, or purging, of the sin. The sin is totally removed,
obliterated, from the account of the sinner.
6. Imputation- where God places the sins of the sinner to the account of Jesus
Christ, for Him to bear in the stead and in the place of the sinner. It is a business term
where a debt is moved from one column to another. In this case, our sin debt is moved
from our account to Christ’s account.
7. Regeneration- the act of salvation where the Holy Spirit gives life to the dead
human spirit of the repentant sinner.
8. Reconciliation- the restoration of fellowship between the saved sinner and
God. Before salvation, both sides were at enmity with each other. God charged the
sinner with sin and rebellion and man charged God with being harsh, unfair and
unyielding regarding his sin.
9. Adoption- the legal placing of son into a new family and the recognition of that
new son by the father.
10. Sanctification- the two step process of conforming the believer into the
image and likeness of Christ. There is positional sanctification where the believer is
made holy in Christ at salvation. Then there is the process of gradual sanctification,
where the believer becomes more and more Christlike in a practical sense.
11. Glorification- the final step, where the believer arrives in heaven with a new
138
body, freed from sin, never to sin again.
139
140
Romans Chapter 5
Romans 5 is divided into two parts: verses 1-11 describe the benefits of justification by
faith and verses 12-21 is a comparison between the work of Adam and the redemptive
work of Christ.
Since the number “5” stands for death in Biblical numerology, we would expect Romans
5 to deal strongly with some aspect of death, which it does.
Romans 5:1-11 there are three things to rejoice in:
1. Our future rejoicing--"we rejoice in hope of the glory of God" (5:2)
2. Our present rejoicing- "we rejoice in tribulations" (5:3)
3. Our past rejoicing--"we rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ by whom we
have now received the reconciliation" (5:11).
Our reconciliation has been accomplished (PAST), God is now molding and shaping us
through tribulations (PRESENT) and our glorification is yet to come (FUTURE).
“Our standing before God is the subject of Romans 5; our state is the subject of
Romans 6-8 (John Phillips, Exploring Romans, page 88).”
****************************************************************************************************
29. Peace Through Justification 5:1
5:1a Therefore being justifiedb-c-aorist passive participle by faith,d-e-f we havepresent peaceg-h
with Godi-j-k through our Lord Jesus Christ:l-m-n
1a This verse summarizes Paul's arguments up to this point. Since we are justified by
faith, we now have peace with God through Christ. This peace comes only through
justification by faith. Justification by works cannot bring peace with God through Christ.
1b “therefore being justified” Notice we are justified now. Justification is not
something promised for the future but is something to be possessed, experienced and
enjoyed now. Future justification isn't very practical since it could not be enjoyed now.
These are the people who claim "you can't know until you die if you are going to
heaven." What good is that? But a present justification is something to be experience,
enjoyed and applied now.
Do you notice how firm Paul is in his conclusions? He uses no such words as “if”
or “but” or “maybe”. He is all firmness and faith. Paul talks as if he were a
mathematician proving a theorem, and as positively as though he could see the thing
written before his eyes. “There is a certain class of professors who think strong faith is
pride, and doubts and fears are humility. Therefore they look upon these base-born
thorns as though they were choice flowers, and they will cull them together like a
bouquet of nettles and noxious weeds—a fool’s bouquet of flowers. Have you ever seen
it in the magazines? I have observed it very frequently. Or they will dig up a nasty ugly
141
thorn, put it in a flower pot, place it in an ornamental situation, display it outside the
window, and call you all to admire it, as being a special, a wonderful piece of Christian
experience breathing.
“If I should say to some poor man—one terribly poor—“I will pay your rent for you
tomorrow,” and he should say, “Well, well, I hope you will,” I should not feel pleased with
him. If you should say to your child tomorrow morning, “Well William, I shall buy you a
new suit of clothes today,” and he should say, “Well, Father, I sometimes hope you will,
I humbly trust, I hope I may say, though I sometimes doubt and fear, yet I hope I may
say I believe you,” you would not encourage such a child as that in his uncomely
suspicions. Why should we talk thus to our dear Father who is in Heaven? He says to
us, “I give unto you eternal life, and you shall never perish, neither shall any pluck you
out of My hand.” Is it humility for us to reply, “Father, I do not believe you, I cannot think
it is possible”? (Charles Spurgeon, “Peace by Believing”, Metropolitan Tabernacle
Pulpit, volume 9, sermon 510).”
1c The Greek construction (the aorist) shows this justification to be a one-time act in
the past, not needed to be repeated. It is a “point-in-time” action, even if the English
requires it to be translated in a past-tense, but English has no equivalent to the Greek
aorist tense. Justification is a one-time act by God with continuing results, although the
act itself is not repeated. Once you are saved, you are saved once and for all. The act
does not need to be repeated although we continually enjoy the benefits from that onetime historical act.
1d “by faith” The only source of peace is justification by faith. Only a total, complete
and free declarative justification can bring peace to a sinner's heart. The Romanist may
go to mass and pray his rosary but he cannot find peace of heart. The Protestant or
Baptist may attend church and have their name put on the roll or they may have been
water baptized but they soon discover that these works, rites and ordinances do not
bring peace. The Jehovah Witness passes out his Watchtower and Awake! while the
Mormon makes his pilgrimage to Salt Lake City, but again, these do not bring peace.
Only the free pardon of sin through justification by faith without the works of the law (or
the works of your church) can bring this long-sought for peace.
“Some silly people who have got high doctrine in their heads, so high that it
smells offensive in the nostrils of those who read the Scriptures—they say we teach that
man is saved by mere believing. We do—by mere believing. There is a poor, starving
man over there. I give him bread—his life is spared. Why do not these people say this
man was saved by mere eating—by mere eating! And here is another person whose
tongue cleaves to the roof of his mouth by thirst, and is ready to die. I give him water,
and he drinks, and his eyes sparkle—and the man is saved by mere drinking. And look
at ourselves—why do we not drop down dead in our pews? Just stop your breath a little
while and see. Surely we all live by mere breathing (Charles Spurgeon, “Peace by
Believing”, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, volume 9, sermon 510).”
1e “by faith” "By faith" is found in the Majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus,C, most
Old Latin copies, the Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Palestinian, Coptic Boharic,
142
Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions. It is also in the RV, ASV,
NASB, NIV, and ESV. However Vaticanus omits "by faith" and so do the RSV and the
NRSV. So the revision and the revision of the revision omit the words "by faith", but then
the revision of these (ESV) now has put it back in! Westcott and Hort put the words in
brackets, but later in the 4th edition of the Nestle text they took away the brackets. But
now in the 27th edition of the Nestle text they have once again put the brackets around
the words, thus indicating doubt as to their authenticity. (Will Kinney).”
1f “justified by faith” Not by tears, repentance, church membership, penance, good
works, morality, prayers, humblings, self-mortification, sacraments, “going to
confession”, “doing penance”, doing the “stations of the cross”, doing a “novena” or
anything else. We are justified by faith and by faith alone.
1g “we have peace” Peace! The war of rebellion against God is done! We surrender at
salvation and God rewards our heart with justification and peace. He is satisfied with us
through Christ and we can now start to love Him and serve Him as we were created to.
Such peace is only made available to the justified, which explains why no sinner has
this peace and why the world does not have this peace. It is the desire for this peace of
soul that funds the drug, psychology, New Age and liquor industries. Yet if you bought
a dime-store Bible and followed it, you’d have peace that world couldn’t give and that
the world couldn’t take away.
1h “we have peace” The traditional text reads “echomen” (1st person plural present
active indicative of “echo, to have”) while the critical text has “echômen” (1st person
plural present active subjunctive), an omega instead of an omicron. Marvin Vincent
(Word Studies in the New Testament, 3:57) claims “echômen” is “the true reading”,
which is typical of his anti-Textus Receptus/King James bias. James Denney, in The
Expositor’s Greek Testament (2:623) says “The MSS. Evidence is overwhelming in
favor of ecômen, so much so that Westcott and Hort notice no other reading and
Tischendorf says ecômen cannot be rejected”. The Jamieson, Fausset and Brown
Commentary insists “let is have peace” has overwhelming textual support, which it does
not. Robertson’s Word Pictures also errs here. But even Denney has his doubts about
“echômen” although Vincent does not. The critical text reading would have this phrase
in the imperative, “let us have peace”, which is totally different from the traditional text
rendering “we have peace”. This makes a big theological difference too, for if the Critical
Text is correct, then we do not have peace as a settle fact as a result of our justification,
but she should, or ought, to have it instead, which is not a settled matter nor a presenttense possession. So is it an indicative mood as in the Traditional Text or a subjunctive
as in the Critical Text? Do we have peace as a fruit of our justification or not? Naturally,
we retain the Traditional Text reading as preserved in the King James Bible.
It is interesting that even the Critical Text seems to prefer the indicative
rendering. The 27th edition of Novum Testamentum Graece (as does the 23rd edition of
1957) has “echomen” but lists “echômen” in the footnotes as a variant reading. The 4th
revised edition of The Greek New Testament also has this reading in the text with the
variant reading in the footnote (agreeing with Novum Testamentum Graece). The
143
variant list seems about split down the middle, although “echômen” seems to be
evidenced by more of the Church Fathers while “echomen” seems to have more
manuscript evidence. But earlier versions of the Critical Text read “echômen”, as in
Nestle’s edition of 1923, published by the British and Foreign Bible Society (1904). It
seems that the earlier editions liked “echômen” but they later shifted their stance to
Aechomen@, in agreement with the Traditional Text. Is there a good reason for the New
King James Version, which advertises being a mere “updating” of the King James Bible,
to place the Critical Text reading Alet us have peace@ in the footnote and attach the lie
that this reading is in “some ancient mss.” while the Critical Text editions are
abandoning this reading? We think not. It is obvious that the New King James is not a
mere “updating” or “revising” of our English Received Text (otherwise known as the
King James Version or the Authorized Version) but is rather an entirely new translation.
A blatant example of unbelief regarding the correct traditional reading is made by
Daniel B. Wallace, who taught at Dallas Theological Seminary (“Do Christians have
Peace with God? A Brief Examination of the Textual Problem in Romans 5:1,”
http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/rom5-1.htm, 2/10/2002) claims that Tertius
misspelled echomen, changing Paul’s indicative “we have” to the subjunctive “let us
have.” Supposedly Paul caught the mistake and made the correction in the original
Epistle to the Romans so that the recipient audience would not know which reading was
correct and which was erroneous. Such nonsense is easily refuted by passages such as
Jeremiah 36:4 which shows that God’s words were recorded perfectly by the scribe,
Baruch, in the inspiration process. We would expect no less in the New Testament
inspiration and transmission process.
A survey of the English translations:
“we have peace”- ESV, NIV (questioned in footnote), NASV, NLT, CEV, NKJV
(questioned in footnote), New Century Version (questioned in footnote), God’s Word
translation, 21st Century King James Version, ASV, Young’s Literal Translation, Darby,
Holman Christian Standard Bible (questioned in footnote), New International Reader’s
Version, Wycliffe, Today’s NIV
“let us have peace”- Amplified Bible,
Others, like The Message, are totally incomprehensible in their reading.
Most of the translations read as the King James and the Critical Texts are moving
toward the traditional readings. Most of the attacks this time are coming from the
commentators.
1i “peace with God” Peace by itself is delightful and is highly prized, but how much
more when that peace is peace with God! How much more valuable is that? This is
what multitudes of religious people, of all religions, literally kill themselves for and spend
huge sums of money for. But we receive it free, as a benefit of salvation!
144
If we have peace with God then we can expect no peace with or from the wicked.
Woe to that believer who is sojourning in Mesech and dwelling in the tents of Kedar
without complaint! If we love God and are right with God, the world will hate us as we
are out of sorts with it. You cannot have peace with God and peace with the world at
the same time, as no man can serve two masters. After all, this world crucified the
Giver of your peace and is an enemy against your King. How can you hope to dwell at
ease among them without stirring them up?
1j “A moment’s contemplation would suffice to arouse any man to the terror of the
position involved in being at war with God. For a subject to be in a state of sedition
against a powerful monarch is to commit treason, and to incur the forfeiture of his life.
But for a creature to be in arms against its Creator! For a thing that depends for its
existence upon the will of God—to be at enmity with the God in whose hand its breath
is! For a soul to know that God, who is terrible in His power, and Almighty to protect or
to destroy, is his foe! That He whose anger endures forever, and His wrath burns even
unto the lowest Hell, is his chief and grand Enemy—this is an appalling thing, indeed!
Could any man but understand and realize this, smitten through with terrors as
great as those which surprised Belshazzar when he saw the handwriting on the wall, he
would cry out in anguish, and he would make a thrilling appeal for mercy. God is against
you, O sinful man! God is against you, O you who have never submitted yourself unto
His Word! God is against you! And woe unto you when He shall rend you in pieces, for
none can deliver you out of His hand! Happy! Happy beyond all description is the man
who can say with our Apostle, “We have peace with God.” But wretched! Wretched,
again, beyond all description! Wretched must that man be who is at war with his own
Maker, and sees Heaven itself in arms against him (Charles Spurgeon, “Peace by
Believing”, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, volume 9, sermon 510)!”
1k “peace with God” If you are unsaved, you have no peace with God but you have
peace with Satan, which will, in the end, trouble you in the Lake of Fire, separated from
true peace forever. There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked (Isaiah 48:22)
because they are like the troubled sea (Isaiah 57:20) with all their turmoil.
1l “through our Lord Jesus Christ” Christ as our daysman or mediator, who brings
peace between God and man. This is the only basis for our peace and our hope. If
your peace is not based squarely on the work of Christ on the cross, then you have no
basis for your peace. It is a false peace and a false hope that will fail you in that day
when you will need it the most.
1m “So we ascend this golden ladder, from faith to peace, from peace to access with
God, and from this to joy by the way of hope (Charles Spurgeon).”
1n “Therefore, being justified…” Note gratefully the seven products of our justification
by faith, as summed up in chapter v. 1-11.
“Being justified by faith…”:
“We have peace with God…”
145
“We have access by faith…”
“We rejoice in hope of glory…”
“We glory in tribulations…”
“The love of God is shed in our hearts…”
“We shall be saved from the wrath…”
“We joy in God” (having received “atonement” i.e. reconciliation, although
formerly condemned rebels!) (J. Sidlow Baxter, J., Explore the Book, page 1490.”
*************************************************************************************************
30. Access By Faith Into Grace 5:2
5:2a By whom also we haveperfect accessb by faithc into this graced-e wherein we
stand,perfect and rejoicepresent middle/passive in hopef of the glory of God.
2a Other benefits of justification by faith, including “peace with God” in 5:1 include:
1. Access by faith
2. Rejoicing
3. Hope
2b “By whom also we have access” The Old Testament Gentile was barred at the
gate of the Temple but could not proceed any farther. The Jewish woman was stopped
at the women's court. The non-Levite Hebrew could not enter the inner court. The High
Priest could only enter the Holy of Holies once a year and then only with blood. Now,
through the death of Christ and through justification by faith, the Christian may enter into
the heavenly temple any time via prayer! The Christian has privileges that no Old
Testament man enjoyed, not even the High Priest. The “also” refers to not just the nonpriests among the Jews but also to the Gentiles.
2c “access by faith” Not by works- never by works! By grace alone without any human
works. A few modern versions omit this phrase.
2d “into this grace” Justification by faith also brings access by faith into the grace of
God. We have stability in the grace of God. Christians have a privilege that no one has
ever before enjoyed.
2e “grace” “The use of charis here is somewhat unusual- “grace” as a sphere or state
(a secure area) into which one enters. But it is a quite natural extension of its more
normal Pauline sense, denoting the gracious power of God outreached to humanity and
working in and through human beings so- here, the sphere or dimension marked out by
God’s grace, the status characterized by God’s grace. Since a reference to royal favor
is also a quite natural part of its broader Greek usage, its use here strengthens the court
imagery of prosagôgê: to enter the king’s presence being possible only if the king
extends his royal favor to the supplicant (James D. G. Dunn, “Romans” in Word Biblical
Commentary, volume 38A, page 248).
146
2f “hope” ‘ expectation. We also are able to rejoice in hope through justification by faith.
A works salvation cannot bestow any sort of rejoicing since that man never has the
assurance that he has done enough work to merit his salvation. But the man who enjoys
the benefits of justification by faith may rejoice in the hope of his salvation since his
salvation is a finished transaction.
****************************************************************************************************
31. The Ministry of Tribulation 5:3-5
5:3 And not only so, but we glorypresent middle/passive in tribulationsa-b-c also: knowingdperfect active participle
that tribulation workethpresent middle/passive patience;e-f
3a “we glory in tribulations” This is a definite mark of justification. It is unnatural to
glory in tribulations, but Christ, through the new nature given to us and the indwelling
power of the Holy Spirit, enables us to and thus to glorify Him. A Christian can glory in
his tribulations as an old soldier can glory in his battle scars. Our tribulations are our
medals. There is a “ministry of evil” (Isaiah 45:7) as reversals, trials and troubles are
often sent from God as a ministry to the saints to draw them closer to God and to
deepen them in their Christian walk. And these are not the common, ordinary troubles
of life that we all face but rather refer to the tribulations that come from persecution for
Christ’s sake.
Being able to glory in troubles is also a benefit of having peace with God. When
you know God is on your side (and that you are on His) and that everything between the
two of you is on a good footing, then you can put up with just about anything, knowing
that God is with you.
3b “tribulations” There is a definite orderly process here. Tribulation is good for us
because it can lead to hope and love. A Christian might be able to get through life
without tribulation but he will be the sorrier for it. The only way that the Christian life
becomes precious is if it has been suffered for. Salvation is free but to make it precious
is not cheap. This process starts with tribulation. We suffer to some degree for our faith.
If the tribulation is embraced as a gift of God, it will result in patience. It will increase our
spiritual stamina as we wait for God to work out His will in our lives. Tribulation forces us
to wait on God as He is the only one who can get us out and bring us through. Then
comes experience which results in hope.
3c Four reasons why we can glory in tribulations (note the plural, not one but many
tribulations):
1. Our justification and peace 5:1
2. The grace of God 5:2
3. The love of God 5:5
4. The power of the Holy Ghost 5:5
The Christian can glory in his tribulations as an old soldier can glory in the wounds he
received in battle.
147
3d “knowing” “Paul was no agnostic, he was a “knowing” man, and all God’s people
ought to be the same. they are a very dogmatic people when they are what they ought
to be; they have nothing to do with “ifs “, and “ands”, and “buts”, and “peradventures”;
but they believe and are sure (Charles Spurgeon).”
3e “patience” Justification by works does not promote such patience for the same
reason- the man has no assurance of salvation. Why should such a person suffer for
Christ if he has no assurance of salvation? He may end up suffering for nothing. But the
man who is justified by faith has a firm grasp on salvation and is more willing to suffer
for his faith since he has a faith to suffer for. Patience is only to be learned and acquired
through the school of affliction.
3f “tribulation worketh patience” A man who never suffers tribulation will never know
of patience. Where this puts the “health-and-wealth” style of Christianity, that teaches
God wants you healthy, wealthy and happy and that suffering is of the devil, is a little
hard to say. “the natural tendency of tribulation is to work impatience, it produces
peevishness in many; but where the Spirit of God is, there is a heavenly counteraction
of natural tendencies, and “tribulation worketh patience… You cannot learn to swim on
dry land, and you cannot learn to be patient without having something to endure
(Charles Spurgeon).”
****************************************************************************************************
5:4 And patience, experience;a and experience,b-c hope:d
4a “experience” This word "experience" is interesting. It is Strong's #1382 dokimh
dokimê, meaning "test, trustiness". The way the Greek word is translated is even more
interesting:
1. 2 Corinthians 2:9 For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of
you, whether ye be obedient in all things.
2. 2 Corinthians 8:2 How that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their
joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality.
3. 2 Corinthians 9:13 Whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify
God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal
distribution unto them, and unto all men;
4. 2 Corinthians 13:3 Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, which to
you-ward is not weak, but is mighty in you.
5. Philippians 2:22 But ye know the proof of him, that, as a son with the father, he
hath served with me in the gospel.
4b The Bishop’s Bible is very choppy here, and uses the word “profe” for experience.
The ESV translates it as “character”. The ESV changes the entire verse except for
“hope”.
4c This experience then has to do with the proving or testing of our faith which will
produce true Christian character. The ESV translates it in this manner. If it is real,
148
genuine and heavenly, then tribulation will only strengthen our faith. If a man is a mere
professor, then the first trial that he is confronted with will defeat him. But unto us who
are saved, these tribulations will confirm to our hearts that we are indeed justified by
faith and are true children of God. Tribulation then is the great acid test of testing the
salvation experience. Trials not only detect hypocrites and mere professors but also true
saints.
4d “hope” or “expectation.”
*************************************************************************************************
5:5 And hope maketh not ashamed;a-present because the love of God is shed
abroadperfect passive in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is givenaorist passive participle
unto us.b
5a “hope maketh not ashamed” The link from tribulation to hope will not leave the
believer with disappointment. If a man travels this path rightly, he will get what he is
after; a purer faith. Such a holy hope in God does not bring shame to the Christian but
rather results in the love of God being shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost. And
this love that is shed abroad in our hearts is like a nourishing rain that waters our hearts
with the love and grace of God. He who puts his faith, hope and trust in God will never
have reason to regret it.
5b The Holy Ghost is given to every Christian, at salvation. The indwelling of the Holy
Ghost in our hearts is the evidence of the love of God toward us, that He would give us
His Spirit.
****************************************************************************************************
32. Christ Died For Us, The Weak 5:6
5:6 For when we werepresent participle yet without strength,a-b-c in due timed Christ diede
for the ungodly.f-g
6a This reminds us of the spiritual deadness of every sinner. We do not carry it as far
as the Calvinist would in saying that man is totally dead, including his will. That simply
is not the case as God continually tells dead men to choose either life or death. While
man is spiritually dead, this deadness does not extend to the will of man. It is very much
alive and able to choose and respond (or not) to spiritual things. But man is dead and
helpless nonetheless. Until a man acknowledges his deadness and helplessness, Christ
cannot save him.
6b “without strength” We were unable to save ourselves, to improve our spiritual
situation before God, or do anything at all for ourselves. We were trapped in the
quicksand, unable to extract ourselves. The Greek word here is usually applied to
those who are sick and feeble, deprived of strength by disease (Matthew 25:28; Luke
149
10:9; Acts 4:9; 5:15). But it is also used in a moral sense, to denote inability or
feebleness with regard to any undertaking or duty.
6c A four-fold description of our former, lost, state:
1. We were without strength- weak, dying, helpless and hopeless in our sin,
unable to do anything for our salvation
2. We were ungodly- sinful, depraved
3. We were sinners-by nature, choice and practice
4. We were enemies of God as we hated God, the law of God and the holiness
of God
6d Christ had to be born and die at a certain time, "in due time". When the time was
right on God's calendar, then was He born and then did He die. This has the similar idea
as Galatians 4:4, when Paul says that Christ was born “in the fullness of time”. The time
of Christ's death could not come until certain requirements had been fulfilled:
1. In order to fulfill Daniel's prophecy of the 70 weeks which predicted the date
when Messiah would be cut off.
2. The Greek language had to be universal in order to write and preserve the
New Testament.
3. Roman government had to be set up to provide rapid and safe transmission of
the Gospel.
4. Jewish apostasy had to be mature in order for Christ to be rejected as He was.
5. The days of Christ’s birth were also the worst time morally, with the Herod’s in
charge. The days of the Herods and the Caesars were worse than any other time in
history, including even the darkest days of the Middle Ages or the twentieth century.
Human depravity had to be at its lowest for the Light to shine the brightest.
6e Christ died for the ungodly who were without strength and unable to save
ourselves or change our natures. If we had any strength, Christ would have been a
helper and not our Savior. He died to save those who could not have saved themselves.
He didn't die to help those who couldn't save themselves but to save them. Christ is a
Savior, not a helper. He who lived for us also died for us as one of us. This was a
concept the Jews could not understand and even the Gentiles would have trouble
understanding it.
Christ did not die for righteous men. First, there are none righteous. Second, a
self-righteous man will never receive the atonement of Christ, although Christ did die for
all. But self-righteous men will never respond due to his pride. Theologically, Christ did
die for him but practically, it will not amount to much since that self-righteous man will
reject the substitutionary death of Christ on his behalf. But since all men are
unrighteous by nature and by birth, this death of Christ was on the behalf of all these
ungodly men. Christ then died for His enemies, for sinners, for children of the devil, for
those who murdered Him and for those who blaspheme His name every waking
moment.
It took Christ to die for the sins of the ungodly if they were going to be paid for at
all, for who else would have been able to do so?
150
6f The Calvinist says that Christ died for the elect only, not for all men. Were the elect
ungodly? But if they were elect, how could they have been ungodly, since they were
elected to their salvation and saved from before the beginning of the world? And how
did the ungodly elect differ from the ungodly unelect, seeing that both groups were
ungodly? No, Christ died for all men since all men are ungodly and the Calvinistic
system of “limited atonement” is destroyed with the simple fact that Christ also died for
“reprobates”. Why would Christ die for reprobates if the reprobate had no chance to be
saved? Christ died for the "reprobate" and for those who are in hell and those who are
going there. This is what makes hell so terrible and so much of a tragedy- no one needs
to be there! Every person in hell was died for and had salvation provided for him.
Calvinists put the reprobates in hell because Christ did not die for them and they had no
opportunity to be saved. We have said many times and will continue to "till kingdom
come" that Calvinism is a philosophical system more than a theological one and must
be rejected as a theological system, for it has too many problems.
According to Scripture (not John Calvin or his mentor Augustine), for whom did
Christ die?
1. For all (1 Timothy 2:6; Isaiah 53:6).
2. For every man (Hebrews 2:9).
3. For the world (John 3:16).
4. For the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).
5. For the ungodly (Romans 5:6).
6. For false teachers (2 Peter 2:1).
7. For many (Matthew 20:28).
8. For Israel (John 11:50–51).
9. For the Church (Ephesians 5:25).
10. For "me" (Galatians 2:20).
“This is one of the most surprising sentences on record. If it had not been inspired, there
are many who would cavil at it. Indeed, many do cavil at it even now, for it is still
currently believed that Christ must have died for the righteous (Charles Spurgeon).”
6g The Jew had 4 classes in which they categorized men:
1. The just, who said "What is mine is mine what what is thine is thine".
2. The accommodating, who said "What is mine is thine and what is thine is
mine".
3. The pious, who said "What is mine is thine and what is thine is thine".
4. The ungodly, who said "What is mine is mine and what is thine is mine".
So for which group did Christ die? All 4 groups. Although some men might be better
than others externally, all are ungodly who are without the strength to save themselves.
But Christ died for all four classes, for even the “moral” and the “good” (humanly
speaking) were sinners and were unable to save themselves from their sinful condition.
***************************************************************************************************
151
33. Christ Died For Us, Sinners 5:7,8
5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die:future middle yet peradventure for a
good man some would even darepresent to die.a-aorist infinitive
7a Men might die for a friend or for some great cause but it is a rare brand of man who
would die for his mortal enemy. In contrast to the selfishness of the natural man, Christ
died for His enemies so they might be His friends. Who would die for an enemy? Who
would give his life knowing that the person would not appreciate the sacrifice and would
vilify the memory of the man who died for him? Christ did! He died for the sin of the
world, knowing full well (ahead of time- foreknowledge) that the majority of men would
reject that sacrifice and would remain His enemy. Yet Christ died for His enemies as
well as for those who would become His friends. This is called "divine love". Human
love will not suffer for an enemy but divine love does so gladly in the hopes that he who
was once an enemy may become a friend.
Christ died for sinners not saints. He died for all men and not just the "elect". The
elect would certainly be the righteous and there is no question that Christ died for them.
But Christ also died for sinners and for His enemies! Get this down- Christ died for
"reprobates!" Christ died for all men- "elect" and "non-elect." Limited atonement, as
presented by orthodox Calvinism, is a heresy and the universal extent of the atonement
is a theological fact.
***************************************************************************************************
5:8 But God commendethpresent his love toward us, in that, while we werepresent
yet sinners,a Christ diedaorist for us.b
participle
8a “while we were yet sinners” If Christ did so much for us while we were His
enemies, how much more will He do for us now that we are His friends? If He displayed
so much love and manifested so much grace upon His enemies, what will He do for His
friends, those who accept His sacrifice?
8b “Christ died for us” God demonstrated His love for us in the death of Christ while
we were yet still in our sins. The best of all creation died for the worst. God did not first
save us and then show us His love but showed His love and then He saved us. His love
toward us then is not dependent upon us but upon Him. It is not that we loved Him (for
we did not) but that He loved us. This is the great keystone of the gospel, that Christ
Jesus indeed died for sinners. Did Mary Baker Eddy? Ellen G. White? Mohammad? Joe
Smith? Any pope? Mary? These false Messiahs did no such thing. Hence the "But
God..." Man would not die for an enemy and only a few men would die for a friend.
Christ died for His enemies. Some would become His friends as a result, others would
remain His enemy.
***************************************************************************************************
152
34. Saved From Wrath Through The Blood 5:9
5:9a Much moreb then, being now justifiedaorist passive participle by his blood,c-d we shall
be savedfuture passive from wrathe through him.
9a Verses 9 and 10 would be "much mores" of future safety and the ones of verses 15
and 17 would be "much mores" of the abundance of grace.
9b “much more” Starting with 5:9, the phrase "much more" occurs 4 times in this
chapter:
1. 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from
wrath through him.
2. 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of
his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
3. 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of
one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one
man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
4. 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which
receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one,
Jesus Christ.
9c “justified by his blood” The literal blood which was shed by Christ (and this is not
some “word picture” for “death” either) does two things:
1. Justifies us
2. Saves us from the wrath of God
It is important to see this not as spilled blood for that could be an accident, but rather as
shed blood in atonement.
9d We are justified “through His blood” and by nothing else. Nothing can be added
to this. Justification is never through human merit, religious ritual, self-righteousness or
by anything else. The only currency of redemption is the shed and applied blood of
Christ.
9e “we shall be saved from wrath…” Not only did Jesus die for us, but much more
than that, He justified us through His blood. Simply dying for the sinner was not enough.
The mere death would not save the sinner. It also involved the justification of the sinner
with the blood of the Lamb. Without this blood- justification, the death of 5:8 would have
been a noble gesture on the part of God but would have accomplished nothing for the
sinner. We are not only saved by His death but much more by His blood. Justification is
not only through faith but also through the blood of Christ. Justification by faith is
impossible if there is no shed blood of Christ. It is by the blood that the sin debt is paid,
making a free pardon of sin possible. The blood of Christ is the only currency heaven
accepts for payment of the sin-debt.
***************************************************************************************************
153
35. Saved And Reconciled 5:10
5:10a For if, when we werepresent participle enemies,b we were reconciledc-d-e-aorist passive to
God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled,f-aorist passive participle we
shall be savedfuture passive by his life.g-h
10a A Four-fold description of our former state:
1. We were without strength 5:6
2. We were ungodly 5:6
3. We were sinners 5:8
4. We were enemies of God 5:10
10b “while we were yet enemies” God saved us while we were yet His enemies, not
after. God saved us before we were worth saving. God does not save the worthy, only
the unworthy! By the death and of Christ, we have been reconciled to God. We are also
saved by His life- His sinless life on earth as He fulfilled the demands of the Law and
qualified to pay for our redemption. He is also alive now, acting as our great heavenly
high priest. A living Christ is needed as much as a dying Christ. If Christ were dead
today in the same sense as Joseph Smith or Buddha or any pope, then His death and
the blood would be meaningless for we are not only saved by His sinless earthly life but
also by His eternal life made possible by the resurrection.
10c Reconciliation is the bringing together of two differing parties. Christ was the
mediator who brought together God and man, again, on the basis of His blood. When
Christ died for us, there was no middle-ground before the sinner and God. The sinner
hated God because of His holiness. God was upset with the sinner because of his
rebellion. Christ then died and applied His blood upon the heavenly mercy seat. God
was satisfied with that and on that basis and that basis alone was man drawn back to
the fellowship of God. The quarrel was settled by the blood of Christ. The justified sinner
is now a son of God and God adopts him into the family of God.
The Greek word used for reconciliation here is Strong's #2644 katallassw
katallassô, meaning "to (ex)change mutually, to compound a difference, receive,
reconcile". The "kata" prefix is an intensive which gives the word the strongest possible
meaning. Reconciliation is the highest form of changing a former relationship to a new
one. Once the relationship has been changed from sinner to saint, there is no going
back. It is an eternal and permanent change.
10d See 2 Chronicles 29:24 for another association between atonement, reconciliation
and a blood sacrifice.
10e Summary of Reconciliation:
1. Predicted- Daniel 9:24; Isaiah 53:5
2. Blotting out of legalistic requirements necessary- Ephesians 2:14-16;
Colossians 2:14
3. Effective for those who believe:
154
a. By God in Christ- Romans 5:11; 2 Corinthians 5:19
b. By Christ as High Priest- Hebrews 2:17
c. By the death of Christ- Romans 5:10; Ephesians 2:16; Colossians
1:21,22
d. By the blood of Christ- Ephesians 2:13; Colossians 1:20
e. While we were alienated from God- Colossians 1:21
f. While we were yet sinners without any spiritual strength- Romans
5:6,8,10
4. The ministry of reconciliation given to believers- 2 Corinthians 5:18-20
5. Effects of:
a. Peace with God- Romans 5:1; Ephesians 2:16,17
b. Access to God- Romans 5:2; Ephesians 2:18
c. Union of Jews and Gentiles- Ephesians 1:10; Colossians 1:20
6. Relation to salvation- Romans 5:10
10f A listing of the benefits of justification :
1. Past justification (v. 1)
2. Peace with God (v. 1)
3. Access into God's grace (having been under
4. Joy in tribulation (vv. 3-5a)
5. The indwelling Holy Spirit (v. 5b)
6. Deliverance from future condemnation (vv.9-10)
7. Present reconciliation with God (v. 11) (Thomas Constable, Notes on
Romans).
10g “saved by His life” That perfect, sinless life, that culminated in His atoning death
and all the benefits that came with it. His death on the cross would have been in vain if
His life had not been sinless, for one earthly sin would have stained the Lamb of God,
destroying the redemption He gave to provide.
10h There is a strong argument for the security of the believer here. If Christ would go
as far as to give His life to secure the salvation of His enemies, how much more will He
do to secure the security and safekeeping of His friends in that salvation that He
provided? If Christ did all this for an enemy, how much more will He do for a friend?
****************************************************************************************************
36. We Have Received The Atonement 5:11
5:11 And not only so, but we also joypresent middle/passive participle in God through our
Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now receivedaorist the atonement.a-b-c-d-e-f
11a Our atonement is also through Christ. He paid our sin debt and suffered our
penalty. Our sin debt has been paid in full by Christ. Knowing this and accepting it by
faith through His blood, we can joy in it
155
11b "Atonement" literally means making "at-one-ment", reconciling two opposing
parties by bringing them together and making them one. Reconciliation is the effect of
the atonement. The Greek word is Strong's # 2643 katallagh katallagê, meaning
"exchange, restoration to (the divine) favor. Etymologically, the word signifies a
harmonious relationship or that which brings about such a relationship, a reconciliation.
It is principally used of the reconciliation between God and man effected by the work of
Christ. The need for such a reconciliation was caused by man's rebellion. The word is
used for the Old Testament animal sacrifices which provided the temporary "patchwork"
solution of the sin problem as well as for the sacrifice of Christ on the cross which
provided the permanent solution.
I have read in some commentaries and in some sermons that men complain that
this is a poor translation, that “atonement” should better be translated as “reconciled” or
some such thing. Seeing the scholarship behind the King James translation committee
and how that every verse was review no fewer than 17 times by the various translators,
I see no reason to complain about the translation. “Atonement” was chose for a definite
reason.
11c There are nine major views of the atonement:
1. Ransom to Satan
1. Definition- Christ's death was a ransom paid to Satan to purchase captive man
from Satan's claims
2. Proponent- Origen
3. Proof texts
1. Matthew 20:28
2. Mark 10:45
3. 1 Corinthians 6:20
4. Man's spiritual condition- in bondage to Satan
5. Meaning of Christ's death- God's victory over Satan
6. Value to man- freedom from enslavement to Satan
2. Recapitulation
1. Definition- Christ in His life recapitulated all the stages of human life, in so
doing reversed the course initiated by Adam
2. Proponent- Irenaeus
3. Proof texts
1. Romans 5:15-21
2. Hebrews 2:10
4. Man's spiritual condition- in bondage to Satan
5. Meaning of Christ's death- Christ's recapitulation of all the stages of human life
6. Value to man- reversing the course of mankind from disobedience to
obedience
3. Dramatic Theory
1. Definition- Christ is Victor in a divine conflict of good and evil and wins man's
release from bondage
2. Proponent- Aulen
3. Proof texts
156
1. Matthew 20:28
2. Mark 10:45
3. 1 Corinthians 15:51-57
4. Man's spiritual condition- in bondage to Satan
5. Meaning of Christ's death- God's victory over Satan
6. Value to man- God's reconciliation of the world out of its bondage to evil
4. Mystical theory
1. Definition- Christ took on a human, sinful nature but through the power of the
Holy Spirit triumphed over it. A knowledge of this will mystically influence man.
2. Proponent- Schleiermacher
3. Proof texts
1. Hebrews 2:10
2. Hebrews 2:14-18
3. Hebrews 4:14-16
4. Man's spiritual condition- lack of God-consciousness
5. Meaning of Christ's death- Christ's triumph over His own sinful nature
6. Value to man- a mystical subconscious influence
5. Example theory
1. Definition- Christ's death provided an example of faith and obedience to inspire
man to be obedient
2. Proponents- Pelagius, Socinus, Abelard
3. Proof texts
1. 1 Peter 2:21
2. 1 John 2:6
4. Man's spiritual condition- spiritually alive (Pelagian)
5. Meaning of Christ's death- an example of true faith and obedience
6. Value to man- inspiration to a faithful and obedient life
6. Moral Influence
1. Definition- Christ's death demonstrated God's love, which causes man's heart
to soften and repent
2. Proponents- Abelard, Bushnell, Rashdall
3. Proof texts
1. Romans 5:8
2. 2 Corinthians 5:17-19
3. Philippians 2:5-11
4. Colossians 3:24
4. Man's spiritual condition- man is sick and needs help
5. Meaning of Christ's death- demonstrated God's love toward man
6. Value to man- man is moved to accept God's forgiveness by seeing God's
love for man
7. Commercial theory
1. Definition- Christ's death brought infinite honor to God. God gave Christ a
reward which He did not need and thus passed it onto man
2. Proponents- Anselm
3. Proof text- John 10:18
157
4. Man's spiritual condition- man is dishonoring to God
5. Meaning of Christ's death- brought infinite honor to God
6. Value to man- This honor, not needed by Christ, is applied to sinners for
salvation
8. Governmental theory
1. Definition- Christ's death demonstrates God's high regard for His law. It shows God's
attitude toward sin. Through Christ's death God has a rationale to forgive the sins of
those who repent and accept Christ's substitutionary death
2. Proponent- Grotius
3. Proof texts
1. Psalm 2
2. Psalm 5
3. Isaiah 42:21
4. Man's spiritual condition- man is a violator of God's moral law
5. Meaning of Christ's death- a substitute for the penalty of sin and showed God's
attitude toward sin
6. Value to man- makes legal God's desire to forgive those who accept Christ as
their substitute
9. Penal Substitution
1. Definition- Christ's death was a vicarious (substitutionary) sacrifice that
satisfied the demands of God's justice upon sin, paying the penalty of man's sin,
bringing forgiveness, imputing righteousness and reconciling man to God
2. Proponent- Calvin
3. Proof texts
1. John 11:50-52
2. Romans 5:8,9
3. Titus 2:14
4. 1 Peter 3:18
4. Man's spiritual condition- man is totally depraved
5. Meaning of Christ's death- Christ bore the penalty of sin instead of man
6. Value to man- through his repentance, man can accept Christ's substitution as
payment for sin
Of these views, Calvin's view of the penal substitution is the nearest to Scripture.
The extent of the atonement is clearly and obviously unlimited in that it is sufficient for
all people but efficient for only those who repent. This is contrary to the Calvinistic view
which teaches that Christ died only for the elect. We must reject that view in the light of
the following verses which teach Christ died for the entire world:
1. 1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we
trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially of those that believe.
2. 1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but
also for the sins of the whole world.
3. Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to
his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all (not just the elect!)
158
4. John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold
the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. (the whole world, not just
the “world of the elect”)
5. 1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
6. Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all
men...
7. Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels
for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God
should taste death for every man. (not just for the elect!)
These verses do not state that every man will be saved (we are not universalists) but
rather that every can be saved. The universality of the atonement extends to every man
yet only those who repent and believe can be benefitted by it. Calvinistic claims that this
is a form of universalism simply betray their failure to understand this simple point.
Thus a primary teaching of Calvinism is totally overthrown by these verses. The
universal availability of this redemption to all mankind is one of the clearest teachings of
Scripture and any attempts to limit it only to “the elect” or a certain few is only possible
by the most severe form of twisting of Scripture.
11d Let's summarize the benefits and results of justification by faith in Romans 5:
1. Peace with God 1
2. Access into the grace of God 2a
3. Rejoicing in hope of the glory of God 2b
4. Glorying in tribulations 3
5. The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts
6. The Holy Ghost is given unto us 5
7. We are saved from wrath 9
8. We are reconciled to God 10
9. We have received the atonement 11
We have these now- these are immediate, not delayed, benefits which can be enjoyed
now through justification by faith. Paul does not list any such benefits of justification by
works since there are none! It brings no spiritual blessings or benefits to those who
reject salvation by faith in order to work for it themselves.
11e Summary of Atonement:
1. Explained- Romans 5:8-11; 2 Corinthians 5:18,19; Galatians 1:4; 1 John 2:2;
4:10
2. Foretold- Isaiah 53:4-6; 53:8-12; Daniel 9:24-27; Zechariah 13:1,7; John
11:50,51
3. Effected by Christ- John 1:29,36; Acts 4:10,12; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 1
Timothy 2:5,6; Hebrews 2:9; 1 Peter 2:24
4. Was voluntary- Psalm 40:6-8; John 10:11,15,17,18; Hebrews 10:5-9
5. Exhibits the:
a. Grace and mercy of God- Romans 8:32; Ephesians 2:4,5,7; 1 Timothy
2:4; Hebrews 2:9
159
b. Love of God- Romans 5:8; 1 John 4:9,10
c. Love of Christ- John 15:13; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 5:2,25;
Revelation 1:5
6. Reconciles the justice and mercy of God- Isaiah 45:21; Romans 3:25,26
7. Done but once- Hebrews 7:27; 9:24-28; 10:14; 1 Peter 3:18
8. Acceptable to God- Ephesians 5:2
9. Access to God by- Hebrews 10:19,20
10. Remission of sins by- John 1:29; Romans 3:25; Ephesians 1:7; 1 John 1:7;
Revelation 1:5
11. Justification by- Romans 5:9; 2 Corinthians 5:21
12. Sanctification by- 2 Corinthians 5:15; Ephesians 5:26,27; Titus 2:14;
Hebrews 10:10; 13:12
13. Redemption by- Matthew 20:28; Acts 20:28; 1 Timothy 2:6; Hebrews 9:12;
Revelation 5:9
14. Delivers saints from:
a. Power of sin- Romans 8:3; 1 Peter 1:18,19
b. Power of the world- Galatians 1:4; 6:14
c. Power of the devil- Colossians 2:15; Hebrews 2:14,15
15. We are to glorify God for- 1 Corinthians 6:20; Galatians 2:20; Philippians
1:20,21
16. We are to rejoice for- Romans 5:11
17. We are to praise God for- Revelation 5:9-13
18. Faith in, indispensable- Romans 3:25; Galatians 3:13,14
19. Commemorated in the Lord’s Supper- Matthew 26:26-28; 1 Corinthians
11:23-26
20. Ministers should set forth- Acts 5:29-31,42; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 2 Corinthians
5:18-21
21. Typified- Genesis 4:4; 22:2; Exodus 12:5,11;12:14; 24:8; Leviticus 16:30,34;
17:11; 1 Corinthians 5:7; Hebrews 9:7,12,20,22,28; 11:4,17,19
11f The ESV used “reconciliation” where all the traditional translations use “atonement”.
****************************************************************************************************
37. Death By One Man 5:12
5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sina enteredaorist into the world,b-c and death by
sin;d and so death passedaorist upon all men,e-f-g for that all have sinned:h-i-aorist
12a Thomas Robinson gives a consideration of the definition of sin in church history on
pages 298 and 299 of his book Studies in Romans: "Definitions of the nature of sin in
the early Church indefinite and unsettled. Gnostics ascribed the origin of evil to the
Demiurge, or maintained that it was inherent in matter. Its sources traced by the
orthodox to human volition. Origen viewed moral evil as something negative. Literal
interpretation of the narrative of the fall rejected by some. The fall viewed by Origen as
a type of what takes place in all moral agents; by Clement of Alexandria as partly fact
160
and partly allegory; by Irenaeus as a historical fact. Fathers differed as to the original
excellence of the first man and the nature of his sin. The temptation universally believed
to be a real temptation and the transgression of Adam a fall from a state of innocence
followed by disastrous consequences upon man. Man, according to Theophilus, created
neither mortal nor immortal, but capable of both; according to Clement, a perfect being.
not in relation to his moral excellence, but his capacity of choosing virtue. Death and
physical evils viewed as the effects of Adam's sin. Many inclined to look on sin rather as
the voluntary acts of a moral agent than as a hereditary tendency, and sinful acts less
as the effects of the first sin than a reputation of it. According to Origen, man's soul is
stained with sin in a former state and so enters the world in a sinful condition. According
to Tertullian it is propagated with all its defects and faults like matter. Tertullian the
author of the phrase 'Vitium originis'. Augustine ascribed sin to the will as the first
cause, in order to oppose the Manichean notion that sin is inherent in matter. Lactantius
viewed the body as the seat and organ of sin. The Church tacitly approved this view;
hence the prevalence of ascetic practices. Effects of the fall continued to be greatly
restricted to the body and this life. Some admitted its effects on the moral faculties.
According to Gregory of Nazianzum, both the mind and soul affected by it. Still depravity
not entire, and the will free. According to Athanasius, many born free from all sin. Cyril
of Jerusalem, Ephraim the Syrian, Gregory of Nyssa, and Basil the Great, speak of men
as born in a state of innocence. Chrysostom, however, believed in man's moral
depravity. Hilary and Ambrose taught that sin is propagated by birth, but that the will is
free. Celestius and Pelagius denied man's natural depravity. The former accused by
Paulinus and condemned at the Synod of Carthage, AD 412. According to Celestius,
Adam was created mortal; his sin only affected himself; man is born as Adam was
before the fall; dies neither in consequence of Adam's death nor his transgressions, nor
rises in consequence of Christ's resurrection; some before the appearance of Christ did
not commit sin. Pelagius also condemned at the Synod of Carthage in 418. Augustine
believed a mysterious connection between Adam's transgression and the sin of all men;
that all sinned in him; that original sin is in some sense a punishment of the first
transgression; and that all are justly exposed to the wrath of God on account of this
hereditary sin and the guilt of Adam's transgression. His interpretation of Romans 5:12
in opposition to that of Julian, bishop of Eelanum in Apulia, confirmed by the Synod of
Carthage. His views as to the imputation of original sin different from preceding ones.
According to Augustine, the freedom of the will is lost in the natural man, who only has a
power to do evil, while only in the regenerate man the will is free. Augustine followed by
almost all the schoolmen. Abelard, however, referred the hereditary nature of the first
sin not to the sin itself, but to its punishment. Several of the later schoolmen, especially
Duns Scotus, inclined to semi-Pelagianism. while Thomas Aquinas and his school
adhered to the definitions of Augustine. According to Anselm of Canterbury, original sin
is also unrighteousness for which man is justly condemned, as all sinned when Adam
did and as in Adam came the necessity of sinning as soon as we come into the world.
Evangelical theologians toward the time of the Reformation, as John Wessel, looked on
the unregenerate as children of wrath. Protestants in general believed that the fall
corrupted man's inmost nature, changed his original righteousness into absolute
depravity of their nature. Calvin held that Adam so corrupted himself that the contagion
161
passed from him to all his offspring. Zuingle less rigid. According to the Roman Catholic
Church, the fall only caused a loss of divine gifts, with imperfection and infirmity as the
consequence. Arminians held still milder views. Socinians bordered more than all on
Pelagianism, viewing death as the consequence of the first sin, but denying original sin;
and maintaining that moral infirmity is from the habit of sinning, and not from the sin of
Adam. Rationalists erased the doctrine of original sin from their system."
12b “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world” Sin entered into the
world by one man- Adam and his sin. Adam, as the federal head of the race, dragged
the race into death and sin with him when he fell. All have sinned in Adam (not by
Adam). We inherit the sinful nature that was created in Adam at the moment of his sin.
Sin then became a hereditary defect, passed on to every man and woman. The only
way Christ managed to avoid it was because He came into the world in a unique way.
His father was not Adam but Jehovah, who has no sin. The virgin birth, by removing
sinful Joseph from the procreation of Christ, prevented Adam's sinful nature to be
transferred to Christ since the Adamic nature is transmitted by the father to the child.
Hence His humanity was a perfect, sinless one, not corrupted by the transmission of
Adam's sin nature.
Would this reading go contrary to any ideas about the so-called “gap theory” of a
pre-creation creation between Genesis 1:1,2? According to that theory, there was a
pre-Adamic creation that God destroyed, presumably because of the sin and rebellion of
Lucifer. If that is the case, wouldn’t Paul have been more accurate to say that sin “reentered” the world, the second time, because there would have been basically two
incidents of sin that brought judgment, the one by Lucifer at his fall before the creation
of Adam, and then Adam’s sin after the re-creation of Genesis 1:2.
12c Views of Adam's fall:
1. Pelagian
1. Adam's sin affected only himself and resulted in a bad moral example but
nothing else.
2. Man has a free will and there is no such thing as original righteousness
3. Man is endowed with reason so that he could know God; with free will so that
he was able to choose and to do the good and with the necessary power to rule
the lower creation
4. Man was born without virtue but also without vice. Therefore man must choose
to be good or
bad and he has the power to make such a choice
5. Forgiveness may be obtained through baptism or some other rite or ritual
6. Man is not born in sin so he does not really need to be saved.
7. This was the position of Charles Finney. If Pelagianism is such a heresy (and
it is) then why do so many Fundamentalists, Baptists and hyper-evangelists
promote him so? Men like John R. Rice and Peter Ruckman promoted his
ministry and held him up as such a great evangelistic power and soulwinner. It
must because they agree with his methods, if not his theology, but you cannot
separate a man’s methods from his theology. Another reason is just ignorance of
162
what Finney taught and believe. His presentation is that of a mighty revivalist
(which he was not) who sparked the Second Great Awakening (which he did not.
Finney didn’t begin his ministry until about 1825-1826, when the Second Great
Awakening was winding down.). But the facts of history disagree. But because
such men like promoted Charles Finney and his methods, who would dare to
stand against someone like John R. Rice back in his day? Not many pastors and
evangelists had the courage to do so for fear of being accused of “having a cold
heart” or for “having no burden for souls”, which would have been a Mafia-style
kiss of death in these theological circles.
2. Semi-Pelagian (promoted by Aquinas)
1. Adam's sin only weakened his will to resist sin and do good.
2. Righteousness is an added gift after man's creation.
3. The grace of God and the will of man work together in salvation in which man
must take the initiative
3. Semi-Augustianism
1. The grace of God comes to all, enabling a person to choose and perform what
is necessary for
salvation
2. This is probably the closest position to the Biblical truth.
4. Federal or Augustinian
1. Adam's sin and its consequences were imputed to his posterity. Sin not only
affected Adam but every one of his children. All were affected by Adam's sin. Sin
did not simply weaken our desire to do good and Resist sin but it plunged us into
sin and destroyed our desire and ability to do spiritual good.
2. Man is dead in sin. Salvation is totally by the grace of God, which is given only
to the elect. This would be the Calvinist view.
12d “death by sin” Death is caused by sin. It is sin that kills men, not disease. You
can look in the obituary column and see that this man died of a heart attack and this
man died of cancer or this man was killed in a robbery, but the truth is that sin is what
killed them.
12e Paul lists seven ways that Adam's sin in Eden affected the human race in 5:12-19:
1. Death entered into the world 12a
2. Death passed unto all men 12b
3. Many died 15
4. Judgment unto condemnation 16
5. Death reigned as a king over man 17
6. All men were condemned 18
7. Many became sinners 19.
All over the disobedience over the eating of fruit (probably grapes)! Adam's one sin
carried such a heavy price tag that it took the death of God to pay it.
12f “Death is a Divine decree: "It is appointed unto men once to die and after this
cometh judgment," Death involves four consequences: First, the utter ending of what we
163
call human life. Second, falling consciously into the fearful hands of that power under
which men have during their lifetime lightly lived, unprotected from the indescribable
terrors and horrors connected therewith. Third, being imprisoned in Sheol or Hades--in
"the pit wherein is no water," as was the Rich Man in Luke 16. Compare Zechariah 9:11.
fourth, exposure to the coming judgment and its eternal consequences. Of course, the
believer is rescued from all this--even physical death,--from bodily. "falling asleep," if
Christ comes during his lifetime! while it is true of all saints, those who keep Christ's
word, that they shall "never see death" (John 8:51). Death and judgment are past for the
believer, Christ his Substitute having endured them. Nevertheless, in this day of mad
pleasure-seeking, it certainly behooves all of us to reflect on the fearful realities
connected with death! (William Newell, Romans Verse-by-Verse).”
12g Three Great Imputations:
1. Adam’s sin was imputed to the whole human race- Romans 5:12
2. The sin of mankind was imputed to Christ on the cross- 2 Corinthians 5:21
3. The righteousness of God was imputed to the sinner who believes on ChristRomans 4:6; 2 Corinthians 5:21
12h “for all have sinned” This includes the Virgin Mary, of course, thus completely
overthrowing Romanist Mariolatry. Paul knew nothing about any doctrine that Mary was
sinless, a notion Mary herself rejected in Luke 1:47, where she called God her Savior.
Why would a sinless person need a Savior?
12i The Coverdale takes the last part of verse 12 and moves it to verse 13.
****************************************************************************************************
38. No Sin Without the Law 5:13
5:13 (For until the lawa sin wasimperfect in the world: but sin is not imputedb-c-present
passive
when there ispresent participle no law.d-e
13a ”until the law” From Adam to Moses.
13b “is not imputed” “ouk ellogeitai” has the idea of “imputed as a penalty”, used only
here and in Philemon 18.
Imputed When a sinner sins, God places the charge for that sin on the spiritual
account of the sinner, which he builds up continually. This places the sinner in a
horrible state of accumulating a debt he can never hope to pay. The sinner has nothing
to pay for even one sin, much less billions. See Matthew 18:24,25 for an example of
this. The sin debt must be paid or forgiven. It cannot be forgiven by God without it
violating His justice, so it must be paid by one who is ready, willing and able to pay it
and that is Christ.
13c The New King James Version mangles the word “imputed” by rendering 5:12 as
“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and
164
thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.” “Spread” replaces “imputed”.
“Imputed” does not mean “spread”, it means “to place to someone’s account”. Thus, the
New King James Version, while claiming to be a simple “updating” of the Authorized
Version, shows its true colors that it is in reality a wholly separate and independent
translation, since it destroys the doctrine of important imputation in this verse.
13d “sin is not imputed when there is no law” Sin was in the world but was imputed
by the giving of the Law. The law defined sin and explained to all men what it was. Until
the giving of the law, men had an idea what sin was but there was no "final authority" by
which to hold men responsible to. Men have no such excuse after Exodus 20 since the
giving of the law. Sin was certainly in the world from Genesis 3 to Exodus 20 but not
legally so. There was nothing to define it since the law was not yet given. Sin could not
rightfully be punished as it is today since there was no written divine law to break. "What
a happy condition!" some may say. "There was no law and therefore sin was not
imputed!" But there are three flaws in such a deception:
1. This was a period of death (see remarks under 5:14).
2. God still judged sin.
3. Men still knew about sin, even without the law (Genesis 12:11-20; 20:2-18).
Genesis 18 and 19 clearly demonstrate this as God condemned Sodom and Gomorrah.
But by what law did God bring judgment? The law of nature and of conscience. There
was no formal law yet. That would not come until Exodus 20. But there was law that
men were held accountable to. According to Romans 1:18-32, it was the law of
conscience, written on the heart of every man. Even without the Ten Commandments,
men knew what was right and wrong because their God-given inner consciences
witnessed to them of sin and righteousness. When men violated this unwritten law in
the heart, they were punished. The Sodomites, through the witness of their
consciences, knew their sin grieved God yet did nothing about. God held them
accountable to it. Yet this law could not save nor bring about a situation whereby men
could be saved, as the Law of Moses did. Christ never died to fulfill this Conscience
Law, nor was He ever judged by it. His substitutionary judgment was by the Decalogue,
that written standard of God's holiness.
13e In conjunction with Romans 4:15, this shows that those who do not have the
mental capacity to reason (the retarded, for example) do not have sin imputed to them
since they cannot understand or reason out the law or where there is no knowledge of
the law in either the conscience or the heart.
*************************************************************************************************
39. Death Reigned From Adam to Moses 5:14
5:14 Nevertheless death reigneda-aorist from Adam to Moses, even over themb that
had not sinnedaorist participle after the similitude of Adam's transgression,c who
ispresent the figure of him that was to come.d-present participle
165
14a “death reigned…” Death is personified and kingly powers are ascribed to it. By
Adam's sin, death reigned from Adam to Moses. When the law was given, a way out
was constructed. While the law could not save, it provided the means of salvation. If the
demands of the law could be fulfilled, then men could be freed from sin. This was the
work of Christ. His sinless life fulfilled these demands. Yet He died as a transgressor to
the law although He was not, in order to be a substitute for all men. Because the law
had no claim against Him, He was qualified to die for all those who were under the
condemnation of the law. But before the law was given, such a substitutionary death
was not possible. There was no formal law to condemn men and no law to fulfill or die
for. In order for men to be saved from Adam's sin, they had to be first condemned by the
Law of Moses. Once formally condemned, they could be redeemed.
14b A "great theological question" arises over who the "them" are who did not sin after
the similitude of Adam. Who is Paul referring to here? Some contributions include:
1. Infants (Augustine, Beza, Hodge). This is a Calvinistic/Reformed Theology
view. But there are obvious problems with this. First, infants cannot sin since they do
not have the intellectual capacity to understand sin. How can they be held accountable
for doing something they cannot comprehend. Second, why limit the scope of the verse
to just the infants from Adam to Moses? Would not all infants from all ages be included?
The issue here is "original sin". There is no such doctrine. Infants are born not with
Adam's sin inherited to their account but with the transmission of Adam's sin nature to
their natures. Infants who die before the age of accountability go to heaven regardless if
they have been "baptized" or not. They have not yet sinned themselves and are thus in
a state of innocence. Adam's sin has no consequence on them since no man goes to
hell for Adam's sin. We suffer the results of Adam's sin but do not suffer for it. Thus we
must reject any notion of "original sin". We are born with a sin nature but not with sin,
including Adam's. But what about the "all have sinned" of 5:12? Would that not include
infants? Yes, if they live long enough. That baby will sin once it gets old enough. "All
have sinned" is not a time-based reference to include supposed original sin of infants
but as a statement of the universal guilt of mankind.
2. Those men who lived from Adam to Moses. This is a better interpretation
since this is the context Paul is dealing with, the spiritual condition of these men who
lived in this period.
14c When men died, they died because of Adam's sin nature, which was passed unto
all men. Men did not die for Adam's sin since all men are responsible for only their sin,
not someone else's. They were placed into the same condemnation as Adam, although
they had not sinned after the similitude of Adam. I die for my own sin, even though it
does not involve me eating from any forbidden tree. I did not inherit Adam's sin but I did
inherit its consequences; a sinful nature.
A man may rightly ask "Why should I go to hell for Adam's sin?" You will not. If
you go to hell, you do so for your own sin. Every man dies for his own transgression, not
for the sins of his father (Ezekiel 18:19,20). You inherited a sinful nature from Adam but
any judgment of sin you receive will be your own.
166
What happened to Adam happened to all men since Adam was the federal, or
representative, head of the race. Because Adam sinned and died, so must we also die.
When we speak of Adam being the federal head of the race, we simply mean that
whatever happened to Adam would have been imputed to us. If Adam had not sinned in
Eden, what kind of a blessed situation would we be in today? Yet he did sin and the
results are transmitted to us. Adam is the head of the race, not Eve. We did not suffer
for Eve's sin. She could have sinned a million times in Eden and it wouldn't have
affected us at all. But one
sin from the federal head Adam and see the results! God entrusted the Edenic
Covenant to Adam, not Eve. Adam was responsible to see to it that forbidden fruit was
not eaten, not Eve. And although Eve started it, it is Adam who is held responsible, not
Eve.
Adam's sin put us in the mess we are in, but every man dies because of his own
sin. Adam's sin made it possible for us to be in our lost situation. There was no sin
offering made until Moses- men had nothing they could do on the account of their sins
until the Law was given.
14d Adam is called the "figure of him that was to come". Adam was an antitype of
Christ in his federal headship and influence over the human race.
****************************************************************************************************
40. The Offence of One Man and the Gift of One Man 5:15,16
5:15a But not as the offence,b so also is the free gift. For if through the offenceb of
onec many be dead,aorist much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which
is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath aboundedaorist unto many.
15a (for verses 15-20) “Just as, sometimes, a physician may give a medicine which
causes the disease to be more fully developed in order to its ultimate cure, so does the
law make a discovery of our sin to us, and it also excites us to greater sin, by reason of
the enmity of our nature, which is opposed to the law of God, and becomes the more
active the more clearly the law is known, even as Paul says, further on in this Epistle, “I
had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” (Charles
Spurgeon).”
15b "Offence" here is Strong’s #3900 paraptwma paraptôma; a side-slip (lapse or
deviation), (unintentional) error or (wilful) transgression, fall by the wayside, mistake.
Sometimes used in profane Greek to designate a sin not necessarily heinous in nature.
It is not "harmatia" which is the general word for sin which has the idea of a deliberate
transgression. These are sins of ignorance or "accidental" sins that were committed
without such premeditation, in a moment of weakness. Both uses of "offence" are this
word. The first use of "offence" we can see such a definition of an "slip" but how so the
second use? The second use of "offence" is a clear reference to the sin in the garden
by Adam and Eve. Eve's sin may have been a "paraptoma" in that she did sin in her
deception. Adam sinned in full knowledge but not Eve. "The offence of one" must be a
167
reference to Eve's sin then rather than Adam, else we would expect to see "harmatia"
used instead. It is a strong word, showing the seriousness of our sin that would require
such an extreme remedy.
15c “offence of one” One man sinned: Adam. By his offense, all died.
Correspondingly, by the obedience of one man, Jesus Christ, all are made alive.
Adam's sin brought death to all. Christ's obedience brought "the gift by grace" which
abounded unto many. Both the disobedience of Adam and the obedience of Christ were
universal in their repercussions. And as the disobedience of Adam is the opposite of the
obedience of Christ, so is condemnation to justification. And it is the offence of “one”,
not two, as Eve’s transgression is not factored in here. Adam was the head of the race,
not Eve.
****************************************************************************************************
5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned,aorist participle so is the gift: for the
judgment was by one to condemnation,a but the free gift is of many offences unto
justification.
16a The condemnation of the disobedience of Adam resulted in judgment upon all
men. But the free gift of the grace of God provided for by the obedience of Christ brings
justification instead.
16b Only the Geneva and the King James use “offences” here, The Tyndale,
Coverdale and Bishops use “sins” while the ESV has “trespasses”.
***************************************************************************************************
41. Death and Life By One Man 5:17
5:17 For if by one man's offence death reignedaorist-b by one; much more they
which receivepresent participle abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness
shall reignfuture in life by one, Jesus Christ.)c
17a With the disobedience of Christ, men changed masters. Because of the
disobedience of Adam, death reigned over all men. Men were under the awful dominion
of this cruelest of tyrants. But due to the obedience of Christ, we have been transferred
into a new kingdom where the gift of righteousness reigns. Of course, only born-again
Christians experience the greatness of this new king in their lives. Sinners who refuse to
repent voluntarily keep themselves submitted to the cruel taskmaster of death. How
foolish! The way out of their slavery has been provided and paid for. All they have to do
is accept it and they could escape the miseries of their king. They are miserable in life
and must go to an eternal hell for their sin. What they don't understand (until it is too
late) that they forged their own chain and wrote out their own condemnation by their
refusal to accept the free pardon of grace. This is the task of the gospel preacher: offer
liberty to the captives and show men what they must do to escape the chains of their
self-maintained bondage.
168
17b “death reigned” Death is personified as a ruling king.
17c In this passage are “two things”
1. Two men- Adam and Christ
2. Two acts- Adam’s disobedience in the garden and Christ’s obedience on
the cross
3. Two results- Adam brought sin, Christ brought redemption
****************************************************************************************************
42. Offence and Righteousness By One Man 5:18
5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to
condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the freea-b gift came upon all
men unto justificationc of life.
18a Notice that in 5:16-18, Paul continues to emphasize the freeness of justification;
the "free gift" of 5:16, the "gift of righteousness" of 5:17 and the "free gift" again in 5:18.
18b We repeat again that justification is free and the results of the obedience of Christ
are also freely given. The results of Adam's disobedience were freely given. How many
of us had to work at being a sinner? It simply came naturally, freely! No one had to
work for their condemnation. The gift of righteousness is just as free as the "gift of
condemnation" was! If you did not have to work to be condemned, why on earth should
anyone think they have to work to be justified? Both justification and condemnation are
free, imputed without works.
18c The Bishop’s Bible seems to use “righteousness” for “justification” here.
****************************************************************************************************
43. Sinners and Righteous Men Made By One Man 5:19
5:19 For as by one man's disobediencea-b manyc were madeaorist passive sinners, so
by the obedience of one shall many be madefuture passive righteous.d-e-f-g
19a "One man's disobedience...one man's obedience" the words "disobedience"
(parakoê) and "obedience" (hupakoê) both have the idea of hearing. The disobedience
is a failure to hear while the obedience is willingness to hear. Literally, Adam's sin was
in a failure to hear or hearing wrongly. But Christ's obedience in reversing the effects of
Adam's sin stemmed from a disobedience due to a willingness to hear aright on Christ's
part.
When Adam sins, we all sin and inherit his fallen sinful nature. But when
Christ is obedient, we don’t all become obedient as a result. Adam’s fall has automatic
and universal effects on mankind. But Christ’s obedience does not have the same
169
automatic and universal effect on mankind, but it does make the blessings and effects
of that available available unto all. We have no choice in Adam but we do in Christ.
19b "disobedience" Strong’s #3876 parakoh parakoê; inattention (failure to hear or
hearing amiss), disobedience
"obedience" Strong’s #5218 'upakoh hupakoê; attentive hearkening, compliance or
submission
19c The same word "many" is used to describe those made sinners and made
righteous. All were condemned by the Fall. But all were made righteous by the Cross!
All men are in a sense saved! Their sin debts are paid. Now I am not teaching
Universalism but the fact remains. All men are saved. All they have to do is to receive
the free gift of justification. A man cannot enjoy the benefits of a gift unless he receives
the gift. He may take the gift yet not unwrap it, open it and use it. Let's say he received a
new car as a gift. The tags are already on the car and the keys are given to him. But if
he never uses the car, what good is it to him? Every man receives justification through
the death of Christ but few men ever use it in asking Christ to save them or in seeking
after God or serving Him. They reject the gift when they refuse to repent of their sins are
refuse to accept Christ as their Savior. What good then is their free gift of justification?
It is a wasted gift in their life and can not enjoy the benefits of it, including escape from
hell and eternal life in heaven.
There is no way any form of universalism can be taught anyway, in the light of
this verse, as Paul says “many “ shall be made righteous, not “all”.
19d If a man's sin debt is paid in this fashion, how then can men be sentenced to hell?
Is that not a form of "double jeopardy" in forgiving a man of a debt and then later
condemning him for it? No. The point here is that while all men may be saved and since
salvation is available to all men, all men will not be saved. Many will make their choice
and reject it. Men are then condemned because they refused the offer of atonement for
their sins. Christ paid the debt but they reject that payment, thus rendering it null and
void in that man's life. A gift can be rejected. If so, it no longer is offered and is
withdrawn. The gift of free justification is offered to all men but many neglect it or refuse
to accept it. That is why they are condemned. The fault lies not with Christ or the quality
of His redemptive work. The fault lies in the heart of man who trample such an offer
under their feet in rejection. All may be saved but obviously all will not be saved. The
fault and responsibility are not God's but man's.
19e Verses 15-19 summation- Notice how Christ undid the damage done by Adam's
sin. Sin entered into the world by the disobedience by one man, Adam. Sin was taken
out of the world by the obedience of one man, Christ. Notice the contradictions between
the disobedience of the one man Adam and the obedience of the one man Christ.
19f The Contrast Between Adam (The First Man) and Christ (The Second Man):
The Nature of the Act
ADAM: Brought sin into the world
170
CHRIST: Brought righteousness into the world
The Place of the Act
ADAM: Eden
CHRIST: Calvary
The Reason for the Act
ADAM: Disobedience
CHRIST: Obedience
The Results of the Act
ADAM: Condemnation
1. Immediate judgment upon himself
2. Imputed judgment upon his posterity
3. Eternal judgment upon all
CHRIST: Justification
1. Immediate justification
2. Imputed righteousness
3. Eternal life
Relationship of the Act to Law and Grace
ADAM: The law served to demonstrate the seriousness of the act
CHRIST: Grace served to demonstrate the "much more" of His act
The Scope of the Act
ADAM: It abounded
CHRIST: It abounded much more
19g What Adam did in plunging the entire human race into sin in Eden, Christ undid by
His death on the cross. Christ then was the counterbalance to the sin of Adam. Adam's
disobedience was his breaking the commandment of God about eating of the tree of the
knowledge of Good and Evil. Christ's obedience was in His dying on the cross in order
to redeem men from the effects of Adam's sin. This also underlies the importance of the
humanity of Christ. Since Adam was a man, Christ also had to be a man in order to
undo his sin. A man plunged us into sin and it must be a man who will redeem us out of
it. If Christ had not been fully human, He would not have qualified to redeem mankind.
Sin came into the world by a man and must be taken out by a man. This is why Christ
is called the "Second Adam". Christ was the only man who could undo the damage of
Adam's disobedience. What Adam did Christ undid. The sin of Adam plunged the race
into sin because Adam was the federal head of the race. As the head is, so goes the
body. Christ is the corresponding federal head of the race. By obedience, the race was
taken out of sin. All men, through the death of Christ, have their sin debts paid for. Men
go to hell because they die without making that application to their own personal sin
accounts. They die in sin and spiritually bankrupt to pay the wages of their sin since
171
they never made the transfer from Christ's account of righteousness and justification
into their own by the new birth.
****************************************************************************************************
44. The Reign of Sin and Grace 5:20,21
5:20 Moreover the law entered,a-aorist that the offence might aboundb-aorist subjunctive
But where sin abounded,aorist grace did much more abound:c-d-aorist
20a The law entered alongside of the sin and did so privately, as per the Greek word
pareisercomai pareiserchomai (Strong’s #3922; to come in alongside, supervene
additionally or stealthily, from "para" alongside, and "eiserchomai", enter.) It did not
come with a fanfare of trumpets but God brought the law in quietly and placed it
alongside of us and the sin that had affected us. The law of Moses was then already
added to something that was already in existence. Men were sinners before the law
came in Exodus 20 but God had begun to implement the plan of salvation before
Exodus 20. The law was then added to define sin and make the sinfulness of sin that
much more evident to man.
20b As a result of Adam's sin, the law entered and the offence abounded. By the work
of Christ, grace entered in and did much more abound. Grace abounds where there is
sin. The worse the sin, the greater the need for grace. As sin reigned as a result of
Adam's sin, grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life through Christ.
20c Verse 20 is the favorite nesting ground of the antinomian who says "If sin causes
grace to abound, I'm going to live it up and really sin in order to heap up this grace and
to take full advantage of it". Fool! Read Romans 6:1 where Paul dismantles such
unholy thoughts.
20d “The more a man be acquainted with himself, and see the numberless number of
his abominations, the stubbornness of his own heart and the vast gulf and sink of all
mischief in himself, the more high thoughts will he have of the free and matchless grace
of God, in coming over so many mountains, and pardoning such a multitude of
transgressions and iniquities and sins and washing a purging such a nasty, filthy,
abominable heart (John Brown, An Exposition of the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the
Romans, pages 195-196).”
****************************************************************************************************
5:21 That as sin hath reignedaorist unto death,a even so might grace reignaorist
subjunctive
through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
21a Sin's reign over man is:
1. Usurpation- it seeks to overthrow God as man's king.
2. Rebellion- against the authority of God.
3. Unnatural- goes against man's better judgment to serve sin.
172
4. Despotic- sin is an unmerciful tyrant.
5. Tyrannical- a harsh taskmaster.
6. Cruel- ends in death.
7. Deceitful- sin lies.
8. Seductive- lures its victims away from God.
9. Powerful- cannot be resisted in the flesh.
173
174
Romans Chapter 6
Chapter 6 deals with the effects of justification upon the living of a holy life. Justification
from sin should result in a changed attitude toward sin and a desire for holiness. In
some ways, Romans 6 may be the most important chapter in Romans because it is
here that Paul gives us God’s “three point outline” to break the power of the flesh and of
carnality in our lives, “reckon, yield and obey”. One may be saved (as laid out in
Romans 4 and 5) but the believer will never progress to the spiritual heights of Romans
8 and 12 if he never gets past Romans 6 and 7.
Romans 5 deals with our standing while Romans 6 deals with our state.
****************************************************************************************************
45. Dead to Sin 6:1,2
6:1 What shall we sayfuture then?a Shall we continueb-c-future in sin, that grace may
abound?d-e-f-g-aorist subjunctive
1a “What shall we say…?” What conclusion can we draw from the truths of the
previous chapter? “The phrase is Paul’s way of acknowledging that what he has just
said is controversial and requires further elucidation to avoid possible misinterpretation
(James D. G. Dunn, “Romans”, Word Biblical Commentary, volume 38A, page 306).”
This is also a debater’s phrase and is used to preface to making an objection to a
statement that must be opposed.
1b “Shall we continue…” Paul was probably frequently annoyed by this question, so
he had to devote special attention to the answering of it. He probably heard it so often
and was asked it so often that it became a real issue, as carnal believers keep looking
for loopholes that would allow them to claim to be Christians yet continue in their old life.
These people did not die out in the first century. Today, multitudes are looking for ways
to justify listening to rock (Christian Contemporary Music) or country music (Southern
Gospel Music), keep playing blackjack at the casino, engage in fornication, etc., while
still claiming to be a Christian.
One of the great apostles of this mentality was Gene Scott, who pastored the
University Cathedral in Los Angeles. He was all over television and shortwave radio,
preaching with twisted version of “grace”. He had the idea that grace saved you and
kep you but then also allowed to you “live in sin” so that you could make grace to
abound. This is what allowed him to frolic with Playboy bunnies at his mansion while he
gave one of his million-dollar horse show exhibitions. Scott would chomp on a cigar and
cuss while he preached, while demanding that his followers “get on the telephone!” and
check in, while sending in an offering. I actually heard one of Scott’s disciples, E. C.
Fulcher of the Aberdeen, Maryland area, claim on the radio that now that he was saved
by grace, he was going to “live it up” and get even more grace. Such attitudes are a
blatant rejection of Pauline teachings, since neither Scott nor Fulcher could claim
ignorance.
175
1c “continue in sin” “It is one thing for sin to continue in us, but quite something else
for us to continue in sin…Sin can flourish anywhere but in the shadow of Christ’s cross
(Thomas Robinson, Studies in Romans, pages 319.320).”
1d “…that grace may abound?” Paul asks a rhetorical question: shall we who are
saved continue to live in sin and pursue sin in order to make grace abound? Such a
thought ought to be revolting to the Christian. The doctrines of grace, however, are
always open to such slander and misunderstandings.
Seeing we have been delivered from the pollution of sin, such a thought of
returning to the hog-pen ought to never be seriously considered. Kenneth Wuest sees it
as a "mechanical impossibility" to live unto righteousness and still serve sin (Romans in
the Greek New Testament, page 92). Considering the great truths about the benefits of
justification by faith and about the redemptive work of Christ in counteracting the sin of
Adam, as explain in chapter 5, could we continue in sin so that grace may abound?
Paul continues this thought from 5:20. The idea is that to make grace really valuable,
shall we go deep into sin or continue in it to make it really valuable? After all, the more
we sin, the more grace God extends to us, right? Not if we deliberately sin after we
have received the knowledge of the truth. This is the grace of God designed to bring
the sinner to repentance, not to give a man license to continue in his sin in the delusion
that God would be too merciful to punish him.
“The whole spirit of the gospel is opposed to the idea of sinning because God is
gracious. It is a horrible Satanic suggestion, — “As pardon can be so easily obtained
from God, let us sin the more against him.” The bare suggestion is utterly degrading and
diabolical (Charles Spurgeon).”
1e “that grace may abound?” How absurd that a medicine should feed the disease it
extinguishes (Thomas Robinson, Studies in Romans, I:320).”
1f Both the Geneva and Bishop’s Bible put “God forbid” in verse 1.
1g “As he has so often done in this letter, Paul is once again carrying on an argument
against a kind of imaginary opponent. The argument springs from the great saying at
the end of the last chapter: ‘Where sin abounded, grace superabounded.’ It runs
something like this:
The Objector: You have just said that God’s grace is great enough to find
forgiveness for every sin.
Paul: That is so.
The Objector: You are, in fact, saying that God’s grace is the most wonderful
thing in the world.
Paul: That is so.
The Objector: Well, if that is so, let us go on sinning. The more we sin, the more
grace will abound. Sin does not matter for God will forgive anyway. In fact, we can go
further than that and say that sin is an excellent thing, because it gives the grace of God
a chance to operate…
176
Paul’s first reaction is to recoil from that argument in sheer horror (William
Barclay, The Letter to the Romans, pages 82-83).”
While it is true that God will forgive sin in the life of the Christian, this above Objector
has made several grave errors by failing to take into account what sin will do to the
Christian:
1. It breaks fellowship with God.
2. It damages our relationship with God.
3. It damages our relationship with the brethren.
4. It causes inward guilt in us.
5. It can make us into hypocrites.
6. It retards progress in our Christian walk.
7. Our sin may give the enemies of the gospel great occasion to blaspheme (2
Samuel 12:14).
**************************************************************************************************
6:2 God forbid.a-aorist middle optative How shall we, that are deadaorist to sin,b-c livefuture any
longer therein?d-e-f-g
2a “God forbid” Dismiss the thought! Away with the thought! Let it not be! This phrase
is used 14 times by Paul (10 times in Romans alone [3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14;
11:1,11]). It is the strongest Greek idiom for repudiating a statement, and it contains a
sense of outrage that anyone would even dare think or suggest such a thing. “Absurd
that a medicine should feed the disease it extinguishes (Thomas Robinson, Studies in
Romans, I:320).”
2b While we were sinners, we were dead in sins (Ephesians 2:1). As Christians, we
are now to be dead to sin.
2c We are “dead to sin” in two ways:
1. Forensically, dead in law
2. Experimentially, dead in fact (Thomas Robinson, Studies in Romans, I:320).”
Expand this to include that believers have died to sin:
1. Legally in justification
2. Personally in sanctification
3. Professedly in baptism (ibid).
2d We note the repeated declarations of Romans 6 as to our identification and
relationship to the death of Christ:
1. We are dead to sin (6:2).
2. We were baptized into His death (6:3).
3. We were buried with Him (6:4).
4. We have been planted together in the likeness of His death (6:5).
5. Our old man is crucified with Him (6:6).
177
6. He that is dead is freed from sin (6:7).
7. We are dead with Christ (6:8).
8. Reckon yourselves dead to sin (6:11).
Death is a separation. Physical death is a separation of the spirit and soul from the
physical body. Death to sin is also a separation, this time from sin and unto
righteousness.
2e “live any longer therein” A believer cannot live without sin, but neither can he live
in sin. Sin may live in a believer (by virtue of the continuing existence of the sin nature)
but the believer cannot live in sin.
2f Abounding sin may be the cause of abounding grace but abounding grace puts an
end to abounding sin. We are to be dead to sin. How then can we live in sin? Why
should we even desire to continue in it? Something is very wrong with the "Christian"
who has any kind of desire to live in sin instead of forsaking it. It is simply unnatural for
a Christian to desire to live in sin or to magnify his sin in order to provoke the grace of
God. Such attitudes reveal serious spiritual defects. Believers are free, but free to live
for God, not free to live in sin. A believer cannot live apart from sin or without sin, but
neither can we live in sin.
2g Kenneth Wuest offers the following illustration of 6:2: "To use an illustration that will
show the definite cleavage between the Christian and the evil nature, the
disengagement that took place when God performed that major surgical operation. A
floor lamp is connected to a wall outlet. It derives its power to give light from the electric
outlet in the wall. Just so, a sinner is connected to the evil nature, and derives his
incentive and energy to sin, from the evil nature. Remove the connecting plug from the
wall outlet, and the light ceases to function. Its source of power has been cut off. Cut
the connection between the sinner and the evil nature, and he ceases to function as a
sinner. His source of power has been cut off. Upon no other basis can one explain the
instantaneous and radical change in the outlook and actions of a sinner saved in a
rescue mission, this change more apparent because of the life of gross sin he has lived.
Connect the floor lamp with the wall outlet and it starts to give light again. Connect the
Christian with the evil nature still in him, and he sins again. But the point is, he is under
no compulsion to put himself back into the control of the evil nature again, nor can he do
it habitually, nor frequently. God has so adjusted things in the Christian's life, that while
he remains a free moral agent capable of choosing between obeying the divine nature
or the evil nature, yet, the preponderance of his choices are Godward. Thus does Paul
declare the mechanical impossibility of a Christian habitually sustaining the same
relationship to the evil nature which he sustained before he was saved (Romans in the
Greek New Testament, page 95)."
****************************************************************************************************
178
46. Baptized Into His Death 6:3-5
6:3 Know ye not,a-present that so many of us as were baptizedaorist passive into Jesus
Christb were baptizedaorist passive into his death?
3a “know ye not” Paul repeats this in 6:16: 7:1, 1 Corinthians 3:16; 5:6; 6:2,9; 9:24.
Paul used this language to express that the doctrines being considered were things that
his readers ought to know. He expresses either surprise that they may not know them
or issues a rebuke that theu do not.
3b This baptism must be a reference to Spirit baptism since water baptism does not put
us “into” Jesus Christ. All water baptism does is make you wet. The new birth and the
accompanying baptism with the Holy Spirit is what places the new saint into Christ,
which is what takes place at salvation. Since water baptism has nothing to do with our
salvation, it cannot be what Paul is referring to here.
****************************************************************************************************
6:4 Therefore we are burieda withaorist passive him by baptism into death: that like as
Christb was raised upaorist passive from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so
we also should walkaorist subjunctive in newness of life.c
4a “buried” “"Burial is the act which consummates the breaking of the last tie between
man and his earthly life. This was likewise the meaning of our Lord's entombment.
Similarly, by baptism there is publicly consummated the believer's breaking with the life
of the present world, and with his own natural life (Frederic Godet).”
4b “that like as Christ” Language like this identifies the figurative and typical language
Paul is using relating water baptism to death and resurrection.
4c “newness of life” Thomas Manton lists three properties of such a life:
1. It is a godly life, as beginning and ending in God, and carried on by those
who are absolutely devoted and addicted to him: 2 Peter 3:11, 'What manner of persons
ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness?' It is called 'the life of God,’
Ephesians 4:18. It is from God and for God; you live by him and to him; in others, self is
the principle, measure, and end.
2. It is a holy life, measured by the pure word of God: Ps. 119:140, 'Thy word is
very pure, therefore thy servant loveth it;' Romans 7:12,' The law is holy, and the
commandment is holy, and just, and good;' not by our own natural inclinations, or the
fashions of the world, but God's direction: 1 Peter 1:15, 'As he which hath called you is
holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;' Luke 1:75, ‘That we should serve him
in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our lives.' The inclinations are
planted in us by God's first work: Ephesians 4:24, 'That ye put on the new man, which
after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.' They are directed by his word,
all moral duties being comprised in those words, holiness or dedication to God,
179
righteousness, performing our duties to men: Acts 24:26, 'Herein do I exercise myself,
to have always a conscience void of offence toward God and toward men.'
3. It is an heavenly life: Philippians 3:20, 'Our conversation is in heaven.' Our
great work is to prepare for everlasting life, seeking, rejoicing in that endless happiness
we shall have with God; a living for or upon the unseen everlasting happiness, as
purchased for us by Christ, and freely given us of God. We live for it, as we seek after it
with our utmost diligence: Acts 26:7, 'Unto which promises the twelve tribes, instantly
serving God day and night, hope to come.' We live upon it, as fetching thence all our
supports, solaces, and encouragements: 2 Cor. 4:18, 'While we look not at the things
which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are
temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.'
Also:
1. It is the most noble life the nature of man is capable of; it is called 'the life
of God,' Ephesians 4:18. It floweth from the gracious presence of God dwelling in
us by the Spirit, which engageth us in the highest designs.
2. It is the most delectable life: Proverbs 3:17, 'Her ways are ways of
pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.' We live upon God as represented to
us in a mediator, and avoid the filthiness, delusions, vexations of the world and
the flesh.
3. It is the most profitable life; it is a preparation for and introduction into
eternal life: Romans 6:22, 'But now being made free from sin, and become
servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.'
(from 24 Sermons Upon Romans VI in The Collected Works of Thomas
Manton).
****************************************************************************************************
6:5 For if we have beenperfect planted togethera-b in the likeness of his death, we
shall befuture also in the likeness of his resurrection:
5a "planted together" Strong's #4854 sumfutov sumphutos; grown along with, closely
united to, united by growth, could be used in referring to Siamese twins. “This word is
about 40 sun- compounds which form a characteristic and distinctive feature of Paul’s
style and theology (more than half the 40 appear only in Paul in the New Testament).
He uses them both to describe the common privilege, experience and task of believers,
usually nouns (sugkoinônos, sugchairein, suzugos, sumparakaleisthai, sunagônizesthai,
sunergos, etc.), and to describe a sharing in Christ’s death and life, usually verbs
(suzên, suxôopoiein, summorphizesthai, summorphos, sumpaschein, sumphutos,
sunapothnêskein, sundoxazein, sunegeirein, sunthaptein and su(n)stauroun; also
sugklêronomos) (James D. G. Dunn, “Romans” in Word Biblical Commentary, volume
38A, page 313).”
5b The Tyndale, Coverdale and Bishop’s Bible all use the idea of being “grafted in” to
Christ.
180
47. The Old Man Crucified 6:6,7
6:6a Knowingb-present participle this,c that our old mand is crucifiede withaorist passive him,f
that the body of sing might be destroyed,h-i-aorist passive subjunctive that henceforth we
should not serveinfinitive sin.j-k-l
6a A brief outline of 6:6 would be:
1. Christ's work, 'Our old man is crucified with him.'
2. The fruit of it, 'That the body of sin might be destroyed.'
3. The obligation lying upon us, 'That we might no longer serve sin.'
6b “Knowing” as a settled and established fact, not mere opinion or speculation.
6c The Tyndale has this as that we should “remember” that our old man is crucified
with Christ, not just to “know” it. We do know it but let’s not forget it or let it slip!
6d "old man" the Greek word for "old" is palaiov "palaios" (Strong’s #3822), meaning
"antique, not recent, worn out". At the new birth, this old man/sin nature becomes
worthless and worn out. It is useless and obsolete. What good is it? It's like your
grandmother's sewing machine in the attic. The old man is an antique- junk with a price
tag attached to it. It is to be cleaned out with the rest of the junk from your life before
Christ as one would clean out a cluttered garage during spring cleaning. This phrase
“old man” (ho palaios anthrôpos) is only used by Paul, and then, he only uses it three
times (here, Ephesians 4:22 and Colossians 3:9).
6e “crucified”. Crucifixion is:
1. A violent death. The victim usually did all he could to avoid the nails,
thrashing violently and cursing to the end.
2. A painful death. Nailed through the hands and feet and hung to die,
defenseless against the birds and the elements. It was a death like no other. The word
“excruciating” literally means "out of crucifying". Death could result from any
combination of causes, including blood loss, hypovolemic shock, or sepsis following
infection, caused by the scourging that preceded the crucifixion, or by the process of
being nailed itself, or eventual dehydration
3. A shameful death. Romans only used it for slaves and the lowest of
criminals. It was very shameful for a Jew to be executed in such a way, as he was not
accorded the “privilege” of being put to death by his law.
4. A lingering death. The victim could take as long as a week to finally die.
6f “crucified with him” “Christ's death is the best glass wherein to view the deadly
nature of sin. It was so great and heinous an evil in the sight of God, that nothing but the
blood of the Son of God could expiate it: Rom. 8:3, 'For what the law could not do, in
that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful
flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.' Jesus Christ must come and suffer a
shameful death; this painful, shameful, accursed death of the Son of God showeth
181
God's displeasure against sin, and what it will cost us if we allow it, and indulge it in our
hearts and lives; for if this be done in the green tree, what shall be done in the dry?
(Thomas Manton, 24 Sermons on Romans 6, Collected Works, volume 2).”
Our flesh, our old life, is dead in the sight of God. It is thus of no use to serve the
flesh. It is serving a corpse that God places no value upon. God makes no provision
for the “old man” and does not seek to reform it or improve it, only to destroy it by
crucifixion.
6g “body of sin” had the idea in classical Greek of a corpse, also used in later Greek
and in New Testament Greek. It is this that must be destroyed by our crucifixion. It is
destroyed but not annihilated. Something may be destroyed, which means it is ruined
and cannot be used for its intended purpose. But physically, it yet remains. Our bodies
of sin (sin natures) may be destroyed by Christ’s work on our behalf but they are not
annihilated. It is simply weakened, harmed, made more difficult to operate as it once
did before. The body of sin remains but it is severely damaged by Christ’s work. One
day, it will be totally removed from us when we receive our glorified bodies and we will
never be troubled with it again. But that day is not yet here, so we must continue the
battle against our old sin nature until that day arrives.
“The sins of Christians, who profess a communion with his death, are more
criminal and scandalous than the sins of heathens. They never heard of the Son of God,
that came to redeem them from their vain conversations at so high a rate as his own
precious blood. They never were called solemnly to vow integrity of life and
conversation, as a service due to that Redeemer, as is done by Christians. All this we
believe, and this some have done, and yet disobeyed our master's will. Heathens had
no expectation of any gracious immortal reward, feared no dreadful doom nor sentence
after death. We are hedged in within the compass of our duty both on the right hand and
the left: on the right hand with the hopes of a most blessed everlasting estate; on the
left, with the fears of an endless and never-dying death: all which are included in our
baptism, and so, if all be not mockery, our old man is crucified with Christ (Thomas
Manton, 24 Sermons on Romans 6, Collected Works, volume 2).”
6h “A man fastened to the cross suffereth great pain, his strength wasteth, and his life
droppeth out with his blood by degrees. So sin is not subdued but by constant painful
endeavours; not by feeding the flesh with carnal delights, but by thwarting it, watching,
striving against it, bemoaning ourselves because of it, and so by degrees the love of it is
not only weakened, but deadened in our soul. If it be tedious and troublesome, nothing
that hath life will be put to death without some struggling: we must be content to suffer
in the flesh; Christ suffered more, and none but 'he that hath suffered in the flesh
ceaseth from sin,' 1 Peter 4:1. You make it more painful by dealing negligently in the
business, and draw out your vexation to a greater length: the longer you suffer the
Canaanite to live with you, the more doth it prove a thorn and goad in your sides. Our
affection increaseth our affliction; your trouble endeth, and your delight in-creaseth, as
you bring your souls to a thorough resolution to quit it. Quam suave mihi subito factum
est carere suavitatibus nugarum! No delight so sincere as the contempt of vain delights.
182
The crucified man's pains end when death cometh (Thomas Manton, 24 Sermons on
Romans 6, Collected Works, volume 2).”
6i There needs to be a death in order for the Christian to live spiritually. This death
should take place at the new birth when we take the death of Christ and have it applied
to our account. Positionally, we are dead to our sin at the new birth through the
imparting of the divine nature and the infilling of the Holy Spirit. Practically is something
else, as any Christian will testify to! But the only escape of the dominion and power of
sin is that we have to die to it. If we are dead, then sin has no power over us. Nothing
has power over a dead man. How can anything control a corpse? This is why dying to
sin is must for the Christian if he ever hopes to live for God and overcome sin in his life.
Galatians 2:20 describes our present condition. We are crucified and our old
nature is dying a slow, lingering death. We do not crucify our old man to punish it or to
reform it or to "get it out of the way so it won't bother us", we crucify it in order to kill it!
Death by crucifixion was a slow, painful death. Although our old nature is crucified, it
won't die until we die or are raptured. Christ died in order to allow us to put to death our
old nature so that we might be alive unto righteousness. Christ suffered terribly on the
cross and so does our old man and we feel the pain of that death in our daily struggles
with sin. This is a lifelong struggle because crucifixion is not quick and painless. There
will be spasms of pain, mocking, ridicule and the constant desire to put an end to the
suffering, come down from the cross and live a life of ease and surrender. But we must
endure this slow, lingering and painful death if we are to put an end to that sin nature
once and for all. It is a difficult process and one few Christians have any stomach for.
But for those willing to endure the process, the rewards are well worth the suffering.
6j "not serve sin" the Greek word for "serve" Strong's #1398 douleuw douleuô, to be a
slave, serve, do service, to obey, submit to, to yield obedience. This is the relationship
the sinner is to his old nature- he is a slave to it. He cannot fight it nor can he resist it.
It says "jump" and the sinner jumps. Only the Holy Spirit can enable a man to break the
yoke of this cruelest of all taskmasters.
This is also the goal of Christ’s work on the cross for us- that we might be
liberated from such a cruel taskmaster. Christ has indeed freed us from sin, but we
must be careful not to voluntarily return to sin, even after we have been saved. The
carnal professor does this, as does the backslider. It is high treason against our King
and shows despite toward His death on our behalf. Christ has liberated us from sin with
His own blood through His death, based on His grace and love toward us. As a result,
we have been liberated, made a child of God, and have been given everlasting life,
among other great benefits. Now, on the basis of all that Christ has done for us, we will
return to that old devil to serve it once again? What sort of insanity is this? This was
the sin of the Galatian churches, in forsaking the gospel of grace to return to the law,
despite all the goodnesses that God had bestowed upon them in salvation. It is no
wonder that Paul was so severe with the Galatians in his epistle to them, and for very
good reason.
183
6k "not serve sin" It is one thing to sin. It is quite another thing to serve sin. Sin may
dwell within us but it must not be allowed to reign within us.
6l “Some men part with their sins with the intention of returning again to them if they
can, as the dog returns to its vomit and the sow to her wallowing in the mire. Or they
part with them as of old the oxen parted with their calves at Bethshemesh, lowing as
they went because of the calves they had left behind. Like Lot’s wife they set out to
leave Sodom, but their eyes show where their hearts are. How many a drunkard has
given up his cups because he would otherwise have lost his situation or been laid by
with illness? How many a foul one has renounced a vice because he felt that it was too
great a strain upon his constitution, or brought too much shame upon him? They drop
their sins as the dog does the meat when it is too hot to hold—but they love it none the
less—they will be back when it cools. Such sinners leave sin as Orpah did Moab, but
they soon find opportunity to return. They fight sin as stage actors fight on the stage—it
is mimic conflict— in reality they do not hate sin. Ah, but Friends, we must have our
whole hearts burning with an intensity of desire to get rid of our sins (Charles Spurgeon,
“The Old Man Crucified”, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, volume 15, sermon #882)!”
**************************************************************************************************
6:7 For he that is deada-aorist participle is freedb-perfect passive from sin.c-d
7a Dead to sin. Dead slaves are no longer pursued by their masters. “Dead”
Christians are no longer pursued by their former lusts or by the forces of this world
system.
7b "freed" He that is dead to sin is declared to be righteous in the eyes of the law.
Righteousness requires a death to sin. As long as a man is alive to sin, he cannot truly
be considered wholly righteous. He has a blot, a stain, which that sin has caused. Only
a total death of self to all sin in our lives will result in a full positional and practical
righteousness. And if we are free from sin, why go back to it, as so many professing
Christians do? See remarks under 6:6 above. Paul will also give an illustration of this
using marriage in Romans 7.
The Tyndale and Bishops Bibles use “justified from sin”, stressing the justification
from sin. The Coverdale has “made righteousness from sin”.
7c Not only is the dead man freed from sin but from everything else as well. As long as
we remain alive to sin in refusing to forsake it and follow Christ with the whole heart, we
will be under its dominion. It is possible that Christians can still be enslaved by sin
since they never forsook it. Sure they've been born again but they have never put to
death their old man of sin and have never turned to God. Death cancels all obligations.
A dead man has no affections. Nothing affects a corpse. You can insult a
corpse and it will not respond. You can freeze it, heat it, pierce it, do anything to it and it
will not respond. It pays no taxes and it could care less if you threw it into jail. It is
oblivious to everything around it. Our new man is as oblivious to sin. Tempt the new
man and it will not respond because it is born of God and cannot sin. Tempt it with
184
booze, drugs, illicit sex, money, power or anything else and it simply will not respond
because it is dead to those things. It responds only to those things it is alive to, things
pertaining to righteousness. Why then do we sin? Because our old man, although in
the practical process of dying daily, is not dead yet and will not finally "kick the bucket"
until death or rapture. It is very much alive to sin and will respond to it. We sin because
in those times, the old sinful nature is in control over the new, sinless nature. If we wish
to be fully freed from sin, everything within us that responds to sin must be crucified so
there would be nothing in us to lead us to sin.
7d We must realize this struggle between the two natures of the Christian. Positionally
we are totally sanctified and dead to sin. But this is clearly not the cast practically for
we must work out our own salvation. Paul dealt with this struggle throughout his life as
he realized that his sinful man was not about to die a quiet death. Sin never goes down
without a fight. It is a long, bloody battle between both natures as each demands the
dominion over the believer and neither has any intention of surrendering. It seems that
the greatest saints in church history have been very aware of this struggle in their life
and they never forgot it. The depths of the daily struggle against sin is a very real one
and is a battle which must be won if we are to grow at all in our Christian life and in the
depths of our own personal relationship to God.
*************************************************************************************************
48. Dead With Christ- Alive With Christ 6:8,9
Some commentators have difficulty accepting the truths in this passage. William
Newell, in his commentary on Romans, can't seem to accept that David Brainerd and
George Whitefield continually complained about their sinfulness (even when they were
being so greatly used of God). Newell writes after commenting on extracts from
Brainerd's diary "God forbid that we should disparage in the least such a very saint as
Brainerd...Yet Paul's attitude is the Divine example. He believed what he wrote- that he
had been justified from sin itself. So that all struggles from self-condemnation were
over" (Romans, page 217). Newell then attempts to explains away the struggle Paul
records in Romans 7. Newell did not seem to be able to accept the fact that justification
does not prevent us from sinning. We sin after our justification and it causes the godly
man to moan and lament over his sinfulness because of his intense and deep desire to
be free from sinning. He is free from the power of sin yet he still sins on a daily basis
through the weakness of his flesh. We are free from sin but not from sinning. We will
be on a firm foundation to carefully consider the experiences of great saints such as
Brainerd and McCheyne and Payson.
*************************************************************************************************
6:8 Now if we be deadaorist with Christ,a we believepresent that we shall also livefuture
with him:b-c
8a Who is “dead with Christ?” Only truly born-again people. No unsaved man can
make such an identification. The carnal professor and the backslider are those who
185
have abandoned this identification and have gone back to sin, to be re-identified with it,
even if they are truly saved. They are, in such seasons, trying to serve two masters.
But their true Master will have no such rebellion on the part of the subjects He died to
redeem and will certainly strongly undertake for their discipline and restoration back to
the good graces of their Master.
8b This is something of a paradox: the only way to live with Christ is to die with Him.
Dead to sin but alive to Christ! Christ died so that He might be raised in the resurrection
unto eternal life. So must we also die in order to be raised into newness of life. Unless
we are willing to die to our old sin nature and to wage war on it and to renounce it, we
cannot live with Christ in the normal, Spirit-filled Christian life. We would still be under
the dominion of sin in such a case and we cannot live for Christ and be under the
dominion of sin at the same time.
8c “we shall also live with him” This is one of the infinite number of benefits that
come with salvation. Die to sin and the world and you will not only live unto Christ but
also you will live with Christ forever in glory.
****************************************************************************************************
6:9 Knowinga-perfect participle that Christ being raisedaorist passive participle from the dead
diethpresent no more;b death hath no more dominion overpresent him.c
9a “knowing” is in the perfect tense. In relation to the resurrection, this is a settled
fact to the Christian, that does not need to be re-opened, re-considered or debated. We
start with the settled fact of the resurrection of Christ (and our minds will not be changed
about that!) and proceed from there.
The Tyndale has this as that we should “remember” that Christ was raised from
the dead, not just to “know” it. We do know it but let’s not forget it or let it slip!
9b “dieth no more” Christ died once and He need never die again. His death on the
cross satisfied the demands of the Law and there is no further need for Him to die
anymore. One death was sufficient to fulfill the demands of the Law on our behalf.
Once a man has died and has been raised, death has no more dominion over him.
Resurrection nullifies the power of death. When we are raised to our glorified bodies in
the rapture, we will also escape the power and domain of death forever. The great thing
about that last generation is we will escape death without having to die! Even Christ
could not do that! Christ had to die, we do not! That last generation, along with Enoch
(Elijah will die in Revelation 13) will never taste of death yet will escape the power of it
because they will be raised from their physical deadness of their mortal bodies to their
glorified bodies in the rapture-resurrection.
If Christ died once to die no more, then there is no need to re-crucify Him daily in
the Roman Catholic mass! This is repeated in 6:10.
9c This verse says that death once had dominion over Christ, as it would over any
other man. But Christ conquered the power of death in His resurrection. Death could
186
not keep Christ in the grave but He showed His power over it by His resurrection. That
same victory over this final enemy of man is also promised to Christians who die to their
sins and who live after righteousness through the new birth.
****************************************************************************************************
49. One Death Unto Sin 6:10
6:10 For in that he died,aorist he diedaorist unto sin once:a but in that he liveth,present he
livethpresent unto God.
10a Also see 6:9. Christ died once unto sin once. One time was sufficient for Christ to
make redemption possible and available unto all men. Christ does not need to repeat
any aspect of His redemptive work since He complete the requirements fully the first
time. The Roman Catholic mass is then a blasphemy as they re-crucify Christ daily in a
continual sacrifice. Christ died once. So why do they insist on re-killing Him every day
in the mass? And why is it that in the Church of Rome, they re-enact the death of Christ
daily in the mass but they have no ceremony where they re-enact the resurrection of
Christ on this same daily basis? Sung Myong Moon, the Korean false messiah, says
that God called him to complete the work Christ left unfinished. Moon is a liar and a bad
one at that. Christ only died once because it was not necessary for Him to die again to
complete what He left undone the first time. Those who promote a works-salvation also
blaspheme the work of Christ in saying that the death of Christ was not sufficient in
securing salvation and that man has to complete the transaction by a series of religious
works. But Christ died once because it was not necessary for Him to have to die again
to complete redemption. Hebrews 9:12,26,28; 10:10,12 and 14 clearly support the
sufficiency of Christ's "once" death.
****************************************************************************************************
50. Reckon Yourselves Dead But Alive 6:11
6:11a Likewise reckonb-present middle/passive imperative yec also yourselves to bepresent dead
indeed unto sin,d but alivepresent participle unto Gode through Jesus Christ our Lord.f-g
11a This verse tells you how to live a sinless life- die to sin! It’s that simple! But
working out this simple command is where the problems lie!
11b Account yourself dead to sin. “Reckon” is that business term that has the idea of
the accountant looking at his ledger and trying to make the “income” and “outflow”
columns match up. We are to take a look at our sins and our life with God and place
ourselves into the “dead unto sin” column and account ourselves dead to sin and this
world system so that we may be alive unto God. We must be one or the other. I cannot
be alive to both the world and to God at the same time. I must be dead to one and alive
unto the other at any given time.
187
“reckon” The Tyndale uses “imagine”, Geneva “think” and the ESV “consider
yourselves”. The Coverdale and Bishop renderings of “count” and “reckon” are for
accurate.
11c Emphatic.
11d “dead indeed unto sin” Seeing I have been baptized into the death of Christ and
that I have been born again, I should voluntarily reckon myself dead to sin. I should
account myself as being dead to sin. I put to death that part of me that responds to sin
so that there should remain nothing in me that wants to sin. And if I am dead to sin then
I should at the same time reckon myself alive to Christ. What good is it to be dead to
sin if I am not also alive to Christ?
11e “alive unto God…” We are to reckon ourselves thus. God does so positionally at
our new birth but He does not do so practically. We must do this ourselves.
Positionally, I am dead to sin because I am born again. Now what am I going to do
about it? Will I live like it? Will I allow that great truth that I am freed from the power of
sin be a reality in my life? Everyone asks themselves that question but few follow up on
it. I must voluntarily account myself dead to Christ but alive to God. God will not do it
for me but He will help me because that is His will for me. If I don't want to die to sin
practically, then God will not force it upon me. I can live a weak, meaningless,
powerless "Christian" life if I want but what a loser I will be for such a foolish choice!
11f “through Jesus Christ our Lord” occurs three times, in 6:11,23 and 7:25.
11g “When once we do know, the reckoning enjoined in verse 11 becomes perfectly
plain to us. Our case is governed by Christ's, for we are identified with Him. Did He die
to sin? Then we are dead to sin, and so we reckon it. Does He now live to God? Then
we now live to God, and so we reckon it. Our reckoning is not mere make-believe. It is
not that we try to reckon ourselves to be what in point of fact we are not. The very
reverse. We are dead to sin and alive to God by His own acts, accomplished in the
death and resurrection of Christ (to be made effectual in us by His Spirit, as we shall
see later on) and that being so, we are to accept it and adjust our thoughts to it. As
things are, so we are to reckon. (F. C.Hole).”
***************************************************************************************************
51. Let Not Sin Reign 6:12
6:12 Let not sin therefore reignpresent imperative in your mortal body,a-b that ye should
obeyc-infinitive it in the lustsd thereof.e
12a Something is going to reign in your body, either Christ or sin. Everyone will serve
something and will submit to a master greater than they. Which one will be served?
This is the great struggle that the Christian fights on a daily basis. He must ask "Whom
will I let reign over me, sin or Christ?" on a moment-by-moment basis. One will reign as
188
a king over us and will control us. If we allow sin to reign in our mortal body, we will
obey it in its lusts. By contrast, if we allow Christ and holiness to reign in our bodies, we
will obey Him in the holiness thereof.
12b Paul mentions our "mortal body" because it is only in our mortal body, while we
are alive on the earth, can we make such a choice. Those in heaven in a glorified body
will not allow sin to reign at all but wholly allow Christ to reign. Sin had no power on a
glorified body so Paul is urging us not to allow sin to affect our earthly bodies. Those in
hell in an unglorified body are in the opposite condition in they have no choice but to
allow sin to consume them. It is too late for them to choose not to allow sin to reign and
cannot choose holiness.
12c “obey” This obedience to the flesh is "hupakouo", meaning "to hear under (as a
subordinate), to listen attentively; to heed or conform to a command or authority". A
man obeys his flesh as a slave obeys his master. His master commands him to do
something and the slave obeys his master's voice. Such is it with the sinner. His old
nature commands him and he can't help but obey.
12d “lusts” The ESV waters this down to “passions”. “Lusts” is much better here.
12e This is all the motivates the flesh (the old nature)- lusts, a strong and overriding
desire to have something or to have its own way, or gratifying the body and the
appetites. The term is not necessarily sexual in meaning here, although that is certainly
included in the definition.
****************************************************************************************************
52. Yield Not Your Members 6:13
6:13 Neither yielda-present imperative ye your membersb as instrumentsc of
unrighteousness unto sin: but yieldaorist imperative yourselves unto God,d as those
that are alivepresent participle from the dead, and your members as instrumentsb-c of
righteousness unto God.e
13a “neither yield” If we can choose to yield our members to unrighteousness then we
can choose not to. Paul is encouraging us not to. This is a deliberate choice. We can
choose not to sin and not to do unrighteousness.
13b These "members" are the parts of our bodies that would be used for either
righteousness or unrighteousness. Our mouth, ears, eyes, hands, feet, thoughts can all
be dedicated as instruments of either righteousness or unrighteousness. How will we
use this body God gave us? Will we use it for righteousness, to fulfill the will of God and
to serve Him, or will we use it to serve our own selfish lusts and desires? The choice is
ours and we are responsible for the results.
The Coverdale uses “wapens” and “wapes” for “instruments”. Is this an old
spelling for “weapons”? The Geneva also uses “weapons”.
189
13c The instruments of righteousness is a military term, "hoplon", meaning "an
implement or utensil or tool (especially offensive for war)". The only physical weapons
we have in our warfare against the flesh, world and the devil is our bodies. Swords of
steel are of no use in this battle but our bodies themselves are. We yield our bodies to
be used as weapons of warfare on behalf of righteousness against sin.
Strong’s #3696 ‘oplon hoplonl any tool or implement for preparing a thing, arms
used in warfare, weapons, an instrument
13d This must a volitional choice on our part. “Yield” has the idea of letting someone
else have his way before you. A familiar example would be a yield sign. You are to
slow down and yield the right of way if you see someone coming the other way. We are
to do the same thing, as God has first claim on our lives and our bodies. We are yield
the “right of way” to both to Him as He has the greater claim on both than either we
have or the world has.
13e THE CHRISTIAN'S THREE-FOLD ENEMY
Problem
Solution
The World (1 John 2:15-17)
Flee (1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22)
Lust of the flesh
Lust of the eyes
Pride of life
The flesh (Rom. 7:18-24)
Deny (Rom. 6:12-13; 8:13)
The devil (1 Peter 5:8)
Resist (1 Peter 5:9)
(Thomas Constable, Notes on Romans, page 67).
***************************************************************************************************
53. Under Grace, Not Law 6:14
6:14 For sin shall not havea dominionb-c-d-future over you:e-f for ye arepresent not under
the law,g but under grace.
14a The Tyndale has this more of a subjective mood in “let not sin have…” The other
translations make this a declaration.
14b Three dominions in 6:14:
1. The Dominion of Sin- Sin shall not have dominion over you
2. The Dominion of Law- Ye are not under law
3. The Dominion of Grace- But under grace
14c “dominion over you…” There has never been a king or a ruler who rules over so
many souls as this tyrant Sin. Millions that have departed now mourn forever the
condemnation from which they never shall escape, as they have perished without
Christ. And millions more that are still upon the earth bow down to Sin and suffer it to
190
rule over them and this fell monster lords it over the myriads of the human race! No
Hitler or Pol Pot or Stalin was ever crueler to their subjects than this monster.
Some external force has dominion over us at all times. No man is his own
master and no man is sovereign over his own will. At any given time, either sin has
dominion over us or God has dominion over us. We can determine who has dominion
over us at any given time by how yielded we are to God (6:13) and whether we are filled
with the Holy Spirit. If we are under the dominion of sin, it is our fault and not God's.
We do not have to be under the dominion of God if we choose not to be. We have been
redeemed from that tyrant by the death of Christ and we are free, if we want to be. How
many people stay in their bondage even after their freedom has been paid for? If we
sin, we do so because we desire to. We can choose to reject sin and not follow it. We
can reach the point in our lives that we sin not, that we do not sin deliberately. If we sin
in this state, we do so accidentally, not because we desired to.
14d There is no reason for us to be under the dominion of sin since positionally, we are
no longer under law but by our new birth, we are under grace. When men were under
the law, they had very limited power (if any) to choose not to sin. The law did nothing to
help them avoid sin or choose to reject sin. The law defined sin but could do nothing to
deliver the Old Testament saint from its power. The grace of God made available
through the death of Christ gives the Christian power to say "no" to sin.
"The believer does sin at times, but he does not provide in his life's plan for
occasional acts of sin. He hates sin and endeavors to keep it out of his life and in the
event that he does commit an act of sin, he deals with it in confession to the Lord Jesus,
putting it out of his life and receiving the cleansing blood of our Lord offers (Kenneth
Wuest, Romans in the Greek New Testament, page 109)." I think the key phrase in
Wuest's comment is the believer does not have room for a continual practice of sin in
his life. When he does sin, it is an aberration, a slip, not a habitual, pre-meditative
practice. This is the goal we should be aiming for in our Christian life.
14e “Those of you who are acquainted with John Bunyan’s Holy War will remember
how wonderfully the glorious dreamer describes Diabolus besieging the town of
Mansoul after it had been occupied by the Prince Immanuel. After many battles and
cunning plots, the enemy entered into the city, filled all the streets with the yells of his
followers and polluted the whole place with the presence of his hosts. But yet he could
not take the castle in the center of the town, which held out for Immanuel. That castle
was the heart and he could, by no means, secure a footing in it. He beat his big Hell
drum almost day and night around the walls, so that those who had fled to the castle
had a very terrible time of it. And he set all his huge machinery to work to batter down
the walls, but he could not enter. No, sin may, for a while, seem to prevail in the
Believer till he has no rest and is sorely beset, hearing nothing but the devil’s tattoo
sounding in his ears—“Sin, sin, sin”—but nevertheless sin shall not have dominion over
him! Sin may haunt your bed and board and follow you down the streets in your walks. It
may enter the very room into which you withdraw to pray—but your inmost self shall still
cry out against it, for, “sin shall not have dominion over you.” Sin may vex you and
thrust itself upon you, but it cannot become your lord! The devil has great wrath and
191
rages horribly for a while, knowing that his time is short, but he shall be subdued and
expelled, for the Lord our God gives us the victory through Jesus Christ.
“…Sometimes, alas, sin not only enters us, but prevails over us and we are forced, in
deep anguish, to confess that we have fallen beneath its power. It is terrible that it
should be so, even for a moment, and yet it would be idle to deny the mournful
fact…Still, a temporary defeat is not sufficient to effect a total subjugation. Sin shall not
have dominion over the Believer, for though he falls he shall rise again. The child of
God, when he falls into the mire, is like the sheep which gets up and escapes from the
ditch as quickly as possible. It is not his nature to lie there. The ungodly man is like the
hog which rolls in the filth and wallows in it with delight. The mire has dominion over the
swine, but it has none over the sheep! With many bleatings and outcries the sheep
seeks the shepherd again, but not so the swine. Every child of God weeps, mourns and
bemoans his sin and he hates it even when, for a while, he has been overtaken by it—
and this is proof that sin has not dominion over him. It has an awful power, but it has not
dominion—it casts us down, but it cannot make us take delight in its evil. There are
times when the Believer greatly feels his danger (Charles Spurgeon, “Believers Free
from the Dominion of Sin”, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, volume 24, sermon 1410).”
14f “Sin reigneth when it is not opposed, when a man doth yield up himself to execute
all the commands thereof, and doth fulfil and obey its lusts; as the ambitious, the
worldly, and the voluptuous do whatsoever their lusts command them, with a miserable
bondage, yea, they willingly walk after it: Proverbs 7:22, 'He goeth after her straightway
as an ox to the slaughter, or as a fool to the correction of the stocks.' Sin is as a guest to
evil men, but as a thief and robber to the godly, welcome to the one, but the other would
not have it come into their hearts. It is one thing to wear a chain as an ornament,
another as a bond and fetter; to give way to sin, or to have it break in upon us; to put it
on willingly, or to have it put and forced upon us. It may be they may be sensible of it,
they may purpose not to do it, or may complain of it; but this is a constant truth, that we
oftener complain of sin than we do resist it, and oftener resist it than prevail against it. It
is not enough for men to see their sins, or blame them in themselves, or to purpose to
amend them and forsake them, but they must strive to overcome them, and in striving,
prevail. But we speak now of the first complaining of sin. There is a double deceit of
heart, whereby men harden themselves in complaining of sin without resistance of it
(Thomas Manton, 24 Sermons on Romans 6, Collect Works, volume 2).”
14g "under the law" should not be understood as the Mosaic dispensation of law.
Paul is not thinking in a dispensational term here but rather in a positional one. We are
under the power of the condemnation of the law, but rather are subject to the free grace
of God through the dead of Christ.
This verse is a favorite of those who use and abuse dispensational truth in trying
to establish a doctrine that Christians are freed from the law and have no responsibility
toward it anymore. They would teach that the Ten Commandments and the Law of
Moses no longer apply to a Christian because we are no longer "under law" but rather
"under grace". Well, if we are no longer under the law, then why are nine of the ten
commandments repeated in the New Testament (excepting the 4th, regarding the
192
Sabbath)? The law is still binding in the New Testament. Paul's point is the penalty and
condemnation of the law is now gone, replaced by the grace of God. The Old
Testament saint was "under the law" for his justification, but since Jesus fulfilled the law
in His body on the cross (Romans 10:4), the demands and penalty of the law have all
been fulfilled in Christ and are no longer binding on Christians. Thus, this passage will
not support an antinomian view of the law.
****************************************************************************************************
54. Abusing Grace 6:15
6:15 What then?a-b shall we sin,future because we arepresent not under the law, but
under grace? God forbid.2a-aorist middle optative
15a This is as shocking a question as we saw in 6:1. Paul addressed this question to
our common sense. Stop and think about this question for a minute: Does our position
under grace then give us a license to sin? Since we are in a better position in relation to
sin under grace and since we are forgiven of our sin through the death of Christ, shall
we then sin? This is almost the same question as mentioned in 6:1 and Paul gives the
same answer: God forbid that we should ever choose sin for any reason at all! Under
grace, we have liberty to serve whom we will. We had no such choice under law. But
now we may serve either God or sin. We can choose but God forbid we volitionally
decide to sin!
15b This is directed against those who believe that the security of the believer is a
license to sin. Grace and security is not a license to sin or to live in carnality, just the
opposite. It is just the opposite- this doctrine is designed to produce holy living in
believers.
***************************************************************************************************
55. Serving Righteousness or Unrighteousness 6:16-20
6:16 Know yeperfect not,a that to whom ye yieldpresent yourselves servantsb-1401 to
obey, his servants ye arepresent to whom ye obey;c-d-e-present whether of sin unto
death, or of obedience unto righteousness?f
16a “Know ye not…” See notes under 6:3. Here, the question is in the perfect tense,
showing that we should know, in a settled, absolute sense, that if we yield our bodies
and our takents to sin, we will become slaves to sin and it will dominate our lives, even if
we are Christians. No one should debate this or deny this observation, for it should be
obvious to all.
16b The "servant" is the Greek word doulov doulos, (Strong's #1401) meaning a bondservant, someone who voluntarily chooses to serve his master. The free will of man is
again shown in that he is free to make his decision as to what he will serve, sin or
righteousness, if he will be saved or if he will continue in his sin. Wuest says "doulos"
193
also has the thoughts of "one whose will is swallowed up in the will of another" and "one
who serves another to the disregard of his own interests (page 110).
Only the ESV uses “slaves” where the other translations all use “servants”. It
does the same thing in 6:18.
16c “whom ye obey” A man who lives a life of sin demonstrates that he is a servant of
sin and that sin is his master. You are in bondage to whatever it is you choose to serve.
In this sense, you choose your own master to serve (sin or righteousness) but once you
make that choice, you are bound to it. You are not your own, you belong to someone
and you are in subjection to something. Sinners like to boast "I'm my own man! No one
tells me what to do!" This is the voice of arrogant ignorance speaking. Since they have
chosen to follow sin by their rejection of Christ, they are the servants of sin and have no
choice but to obey its dictates. They cannot resist the commands of sin in their lives,
despite their imagined liberty and free will. The Christian is in the same position, except
that his master is Christ. While sin forces the sinner to obey its will, the Christian, who
has made his choice to obey Christ, does so voluntarily because he wants to. He must
because he knows it is right. But all men must make such a choice. It cannot be
avoided. And failing to choose automatically defaults you to serving sin, for no man can
serve righteousness without the enabling power of the Holy Spirit to help him make that
decision, as well as a deliberate act and choice of the will on the part of the man doing
the choosing.
16d “'His servants ye are to whom ye obey,' whether there hath been a formal contract,
yea or no. He that actually obeyeth another is to be accounted his servant, and
becometh his servant. The first notion teacheth us that none can be a servant to
another but by the election and consent of his own proper will, and whatsoever service
men enter, they enter it of their own accord; the devil cannot force us to evil, and Christ
will not force us to good… That the great business which belongeth to our duty is the
choice of a master, or to consider to what we must addict ourselves, and upon what we
bestow our minds and hearts, our life and love, our time and strength: 1 Kings 18:21,
'How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow him; but if Baal, then
follow him.' He brings the business to a trial, not to give them liberty to be of what
religion they pleased, but on deliberation to choose the best. So Josh. 24:15, 'If it seem
evil to you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom you will serve.' He doth not
leave it to their liberty to choose God or idols, but would have them to compare the best
with the worst, the service of God or the service of devils; which will be life and which
will be death, which will be good and which will be bad for them; not as if it were
doubtful which to choose, for that is evident to any man in his right wits; nor to blunt
their zeal by any demurrer in the case, but rather quicken and hasten their choice; but
chiefly that they might choose freely, and be more firm and constant in their covenant,
and to shame them, that they might be more inexcusable, if, pretending to God, they
divert their obedience from him to other things. Well, then, whom will you serve and
love? To whom will ye give up your minds and hearts, and whole man? To do what God
requireth, or to serve and please your lusts? Make a right choice, and then be firm and
194
true to it. Will you pretend to be servants to God, and do nothing for him? (Thomas
Manton, 24 Sermons Upon Romans 6, Collected Works, volume 2).”
16e “To understand this, we must understand the status of a slave….In Paul’s day…he
had no time which belonged to himself; every single moment belonged to his master.
He was his master’s absolutely exclusive possession….Paul says ‘At one time you were
the slave of sin. Sin had exclusive possession of you. At that time you could not talk of
anything else but sinning. But now you have taken God as your master and he has
exclusive possession of you. Now you cannot even talk about sinning; you must talk
about nothing but holiness (William Barclay, The Letter to the Romans, The Daily Study
Bible, page 89).”
16f There are only two masters that a man may choose in life:
1. Sin unto death
2. Obedience unto righteousness
That's it! There are no more choices! You either serve righteousness or
unrighteousness. You either serve God or the Devil (and serving self or anything
besides God is serving Satan). You must serve either God or mammon, although you
cannot serve both.
****************************************************************************************************
6:17 But God be thanked, that ye wereimperfect the servantsa-16b of sin, but ye have
obeyedaorist from the heart that form of doctrineb-c-d which was delivered you.aorist
passive
17a “ye were the servants of sin” Paul is speaking of Christians here who, before
they were saved, were the servants of sin (as all sinners are) but thanks to their new
birth no longer are. They were the servants of sin but have obeyed that form of doctrine
that was delivered to them which led then to godly repentance. "God be thanked that ye
were the servants of sin...", not "are the servants". Those still in sin for whatever reason
have absolutely nothing to rejoice over. They are still in their slavery by their own
choosing and voluntarily continue in their misery.
17b These Romans obeyed that form of doctrine they had received from the heart
rather than the head. Salvation is a heart matter and not a head matter. Many people
end up in hell because they have that "form of doctrine" in the head but it never gets two
feet "further south" to the heart. Devils have a head knowledge of the gospel but do not
believe from the heart.
17c "Doctrine" is literally "that which is taught". Doctrine is truth that is to be taught by
those who are apt to teach and who have been given the spiritual gifts to teach.
Doctrine then must be taught but it must also be studied in having it taught to
somebody. Lazy believers will not be adept at doctrine since they will not put forth the
necessary work and discipline to study it. The great theologians in church history have
been men willing to study, work and who were humble enough to be taught.
195
17d The ESV uses the weaker “standard of teaching” rather than the “form of doctrine”.
Does the ESV not like the word “doctrine?” Most modern Christians do not and it
reflects in the Bibles they use.
****************************************************************************************************
6:18 Being then made freea-aorist passive participle from sin, ye became the servantsb-aorist
passive
of righteousness.b-c
18a “free from sin” This is one of the many benefits of salvation. We will not fully
realize what a great benefit this is until we get to heaven, receive our glorified bodies,
and only then realize how much damage sin had done to our mortal bodies while on
earth!
18b The translations all use “servants” but the ESV mistakenly uses “slaves” just as in
6:16.
18b “servants of righteousness” After their salvation, they were freed from the
dominion of sin and then became the servants of righteousness. Here then is the only
way to escape the tyranny of sin: be saved! We were then able to change our master.
Only Jesus can redeem from the slave-market of sin. Rites, rituals and religions cannot.
Remember, salvation is a person, not things or rites.
Paul assumes that if a man has been made free from sin that he will become a
servant of righteousness and that he will not backslide back into servitude of sin. There
is something seriously wrong with a professing Christian who willingly and deliberately
lapses back into servitude of sin. Either he never really was saved to begin with and
thus was never emancipated from sin, or is so horribly backslidden that he is in danger
of making his faith shipwreck and is in danger of an early death due to the "sin unto
death".
If you really stop and think about it, salvation is simply a slave changing masters.
Before the new birth, we were slaves to a tyrant of a master, sin. After we were saved,
we were bought by another master, righteousness. Our status as a slave does not
change for all men are slaves to something, either sin or righteousness. The difference
is to whom are you a slave? Christians are slaves to righteousness and should never
think of themselves as free to do as they please. They are as much under bondage as
the sinner, except our master is kind, gracious and loves us while sin desires to damn
our souls to hell.
18c Notice there is no middle ground mentioned here. You serve either sin or
righteousness. There is no independent state of man here where neither master claims
him. He is under constant servitude of one or the other all times and in all seasons of
his life. A sinner may deny being the servant of sin, claiming that he is his own master,
but such boasts are made in ignorant and denial of the true state of his situation. No
man on the planet has ever been truly “free” in this regard.
****************************************************************************************************
196
6:19a I speakpresent after the manner of menb because of the infirmityc of your
flesh:d for as ye have yieldedaorist your members servants to uncleannesse and to
iniquityf unto iniquity; even so now yieldaorist imperative your members servants to
righteousness unto holiness.f
19a Remember when you were unsaved how you willingly and happily served sin?
You wallowed in sin, enjoyed it and never gave it a second thought. Paul is pleading for
such a dedication to righteousness now that we are saved. Serve righteousness with at
least as much fervor (hopefully more) than you served sin. Yield your members to
righteousness at least as much if not more than you did to sin when you were yet lost.
19b The Tyndale and Coverdale have this as “I will speak grossly”, which is a very
strong way to render “I speak as a man”! But the ESV really weakens this by using “I
speak in human terms”. Meh.
19c “infirmity” The ESV translates this as “lawlessness” which is not the correct
translation.
19d The ESV has this as “your natural limitations” while the other translations correctly
have this as referring to the weakness or the infirmities of the flesh. The ESV is giving a
pass to the “flesh” or old nature here and we must wonder why the ESV is so hesitant to
say something negative about it.
19e “uncleanness” Strong’s #167 akayarsia akatharsia; impurity, filth, impurity
arising from indulged lusts. There is a sexual connotation to the word.
19f Holiness is the ultimate goal of our salvation and our yielding ourselves to
righteousness.
***************************************************************************************************
6:20a For when ye wereimperfect the servantsb of sin, ye wereimperfect free from
righteousness.c
20a It is impossible to serve both sin and righteousness at the same time. No man can
serve two masters but must dedicate himself to one. When we were yet in our sins we
served sin and not righteousness. While in our sins we were free from righteousness.
Now that we are saved we ought to be free from the dominion of sin.
20b The ESV continues to insist upon translating “servants” as “slaves”.
20c Being free from righteousness is the Greek word eleuyerov "eleutheros",
meaning "unrestrained (to go at pleasure), (as a citizen) not a slave (whether freeborn
or manumitted), exempt (from obligation or liability), capable of movement,
unconstrained, unfettered, independent". There is a sense that the Christian is more
197
constrained than the sinner in his actions. The sinner is allowed by his flesh and old
nature to do whatever he wants. He may get drunk, commit adultery, and sin at his
heart's content. Of course, he will pay for it in this life and later but he is at liberty in his
sin to sin. What else do you expect the sinner to do, go to cottage prayer meetings?
The demands of righteousness have no binding influence upon the sinner since he is
not under righteousness. The saint cannot partake in these same activities because he
bound by grace. His master, Christ, will not permit him to live as the sinner because of
the restraints of righteousness. But are they really restraints? Do we as Christians
really miss the cocktail parties, the X- rated theaters, the rock concert? We cannot
indulge the flesh in these activities as Christians but why should we want to? It's like
living next to a sewage lagoon and having my parents say "Now do not go swimming in
the sewage". The neighbor boy may be allowed to by his parents but I am restricted by
mine. It is a restriction but in reality it is not because I have no intention to go swimming
in sewage! So as Christians, God commands us to stay away from the sewage of the
world, but do you really need such a restriction?
*************************************************************************************************
56. Fruit From Righteousness 6:21-23
6:21 What fruit had yea-imperfect then in those things whereof ye are now
ashamed?present middle/passive for the end of those things is death.b
21a “What fruit had ye…” Imperfect tense, denoting continuation. “What fruit were
you continuing to have while you served sin?” The only fruit that can be had from a life
of sin is laid out in 6:23- death. Was there anything positive, eternal, really important
and lasting that you gained from serving sin? There are a lot of temporary, cheap
pleasures at satisfy for a season, but the long-term fruit is death and the lake of fire.
The fruit of the world is like smoking a cigarette or taking a drink of liquor. It satisfies for
a moment, but then you need another and another, all the way to the pit.
21b Why not sell out to God the way we sold out to Satan when we were yet unsaved?
We served Satan with all of our might when were lost and for what? What was our
reward? Our wages were death. Now that we are saved with a reward of eternal life,
why not “sell out” to God?
****************************************************************************************************
6:22a But now being made freeaorist passive participle from sin, and become servantsb-aorist
to God, ye havepresent your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlastingc
life.
passive participle
22a Paul contrasts the two sets of fruit which are spawned from serving either sin or
righteousness. The only fruit of serving unrighteousness is death. The wages of sin, or
the payment of sin is also death. But the fruit of serving righteousness is holiness and
everlasting life. Paul asks us to stop and dwell upon our past state and compare it to
our present, justified one. Was sin so precious and sweet that you still harbor a desire
198
to dabble in it, even after you have been justified? What did sin ever do for you? What
benefits has it imparted unto you? Did it make your life better? Did it benefit your
family? Did it magnify your good name in the community? Didn't it rather grease your
sinful skid into the pit? Didn't it ruin you body, wreck your health, steal your money,
rape your reputation and harm your family? What advantage is there in sin to make a
justified man still lust after it? The wages of sin is death. Is death so much more
desirable than the gift of God, which is eternal life? Common sense questions but you
would be surprised how many Christians could not give a common sense answer.
22b The ESV continues to insist upon translating “servants” as “slaves”.
“Citing material confiscated and turned over to the police in Orange, California,
as part of an investigation into Satanic group crime, New Age Bible Versions documents
that Satanists mockingly call Christians ‘slaves’ of Christ (pp. 221-225). The word ‘slave’
has very negative connotative associations, ranging from its well-known historical
applications to its current debauched meaning among sodomites. Webster defines a
slave as, “A person held in bondage...One who has lost control of himself...a drudge...”
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language states that the words (e.g. slave,
slothful, slain, slack) convey a “downward movement...or position.” Becoming a servant
of Jesus Christ is certainly an upward move (The Language of the King James Bible, p.
68). The word slave was first suggested for use in the bible in 1890 by Westcott and
Hort’s Revised Version and American Standard Version Committee member, James
Strong. He buried his opinions about how words should be translated in his Strong’s
Concordance, in its A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament, hidden
in the back. Few realize he created this otherwise useful concordance for “one great
object,” which was to “index” the changes made to the “Authorized Version” [KJV] by the
“Revised Version” of Westcott and Hort, and the “American revisers only” (Strong’s
Concordance, General Preface, Directions and Explanations, pages not numbered). He
admits in item 4 of his “Plan of the Book” that the first Greek so-called ‘definition’ he
gives, is his own; in Strong’s Concordance, Preface to the Concise Dictionary of the
Words in the Hebrew Bible, Strong admits his Old Testament work is based on
Gesenius (a Bible critic) and his definitions are merely his own suggestions for
“correcting” the KJV’s so-called “wrong translation.” His lexical definitions were merely
his opinions about how words should be translated in his upcoming ASV, later published
in 1901. Some of his ideas were incorporated into this corrupt version; some were not.
The word ‘slave’ was not used, and rightly so. Strong denied the inspiration of the Bible.
The Preface of the ASV went so far as to state that the original “Hebrew text is probably
corrupt...” (p. vii)...The first time the word ‘slave’ was actually chained to a bible was in
1961 in the New World Translation of the Jehovah Witness sect. The Catholic New
American Bible fell prey to it in 1970. The NIV and NASB submitted to the yoke
immediately. The NKJV has a galley of “slaves,” including “slaves of God” (Rom. 6:22)
and “Christ’s slaves” (1 Cor. 7:22). The New Living Translation, Today’s New
International Version and the Holman Christian Standard Bible were the most recent to
sell their readers into slavery (Gail Riplinger, In Awe of Thy Word, pages 264-265).”
Translations that use “slave” include the New International Version, New Living
Translation, English Standard Version and the New American Standard Version. The
199
translations that correctly use “servant” include the older translations, such as the
English Revised Version and the Rheims Douay, plus the King james Bible and the preKing James translations.
22c The other translations all have “everlasting life” but the ESV uses “eternal” life.
“fruit unto holiness” is probably similar to the fruit of the Spirit of Galatians 5:22,23.
**************************************************************************************************
6:23a For the wagesb of sin is death;c-d but the gifte of God is eternal life through
Jesus Christf our Lord.
23a Verse 23 is another one of those great evangelistic verses in contrasting the
payoffs of sin and righteousness. Serving sin can be likened to working for a man.
Come payday, the employee receives his paycheck for the amount of work he has put
in. Sin also gives a paycheck to those who serve it and work for it. The amount of the
check is "death", eternal death in the lake of fire. Serving sin pays off in death in hell.
"No man ever struck against this master, Sin, for higher wages (J. Frank Norris,
Lectures on Romans, page 96)." Sin is a terrible paymaster! Would you knowingly and
willingly take a job where the boss promises that when payday rolled around, you would
be cast into hell? But serving God pays off in the free gift of eternal life. You don't even
have to work for that gift of eternal life as God gives it freely. The man serving sin has
to work in order to be paid off in death! This man works his way to hell! The Christian
receives his eternal life as a free gift but the condemned man is going to hell anyway
but is forced by sin to actually work for the condemnation he already has! Who would
work to go to hell? Yet that is what every unsaved man is doing. How foolish are these
sinners? The gift of eternal life is at their fingertips yet they will reject it to continue to
sweat and labor themselves to the pit. We'll say it again that sin is insanity. Sinners
cannot think straight in terms of themselves and their eternal destiny.
23b It is interesting that the "wages" in 6:23 is a military term meaning "rations for a
soldier, his stipend or pay". As a soldiers musters for his pay on payday, so will the
sinner be lined up to receive his wages of death at the Great White Throne.
The Tyndale, Coverdale and Bishop’s Bibles have this as “reward”.
23c “wages of sin…” “Wages” is a reward for labor. Death is sin’s due reward and it
must be paid. A business owner employs a man and agrees that man that should
receive his wages. If his employer did not pay him his wages, it would be an act of gross
injustice. If sin did not bring upon man death and misery, it would be an injustice. It is
necessary for the very standing of the very justice and holiness of God that sin be
punished. They that sow, must reap. The sin which hires you must pay you. Every
transgression and disobedience must receive its just recompense of reward. When we
chose to serve sin, we also agreed to serve for its wages, which are death, and we must
be paid what we agreed to. And this wage is earned. The workman receives the wages
on payday not only because it was agreed to beforehand but also because the workman
earned such payment by virtue of the effort and production he generated. And every
200
sinner has done a very exceptional job at sinning and has served his master well.
When payday comes, he will be “rewarded” accordingly.
This is what is involved in evangelism- trying to get the sinner to change jobs,
wages and masters by offering him better. Instead of working for Satan, he can work
for Christ. Instead of languishing under the whip of sin, he can serve as a son. Instead
of death as his recompense, he may receive glory and everlasting life instead. What
man in his right mind would not desire such a change in employment? Yet how many
millions continue to voluntarily suffer under such a soul-crushing load! Christ desires to
recruit them but they will have none of it.
23d “…is death” To everyone, one and all, to all of mankind without exception. No
one is exempt, regardless of religion, income, status or fame. Sin kills all and it is 100%
fatal.
23e Why does the ESV add “free” before “gift”? That reads more like a commentary
than a translation. None of the traditional translations add “free.”
23f “Jesus Christ” Critical texts transpose to “Christ Jesus”.
**************************************************************************************************
Postscript- Romans 6
In Romans chapter 6, Paul has discussed the Christian's deliverance from the
domination of sin in his life. Can a Christian reach a point in his life where sin has no
more power over him? According to Paul, yes. We can grow to such a relationship that
we do not sin deliberately. We will still sin accidentally but we will not do so in a
deliberate, high-handed fashion. The power of sin in the life of a believer should be
weakening over time as we become stronger and more mature in the Lord and in grace.
But we must not confuse this with any sort of sinless perfection or eradication of the sin
nature, as was taught by Adam Clarke and some of the old Methodist theologians who
followed him (who took John Wesley’s teachings on “perfect love” too far). We never
mentioned the Christian reaching a stage in this life where he could not sin but rather
would not sin. There is no such state as sinless perfection or eradication of the sin
nature in this life. But we can come to a point that, as John Wesley described it, perfect
love toward God in that we love God too much to deliberately sin against Him. We
would rather die than sin. When we do sin, it was because the old nature snuck up on
us and blind-sided us. It was a slip, an accident, not a habit or way of life. We do not
have to be a slave to our sin. We do have deliverance and victory over it. We sin
because we want to. We love that sin so much that we have difficulty renouncing it.
When we come to the point where we love God more than that sin, then we can get the
mastery and victory over it and be freed from its power.
The following excerpt is from an article entitled “The Biblical Doctrine of Sanctification”
by O. Talmadge Spence, as printed in Straightway (July 1997). This relates to Romans
6-8 and the doctrine of sanctification.
201
"The Book of Romans, theologically, leads the sinner, step by step, from his most
wretched state into the highest Burnt offering life (Romans 1-8 & 12-16; Chapters 9-11
are a parenthesis in the Book to Israel).
The introduction and theme of the Book are carefully laid down (1:1-17). The
theme is easily set forth as: "The Power of the Gospel of Christ Unto Salvation to Every
one that Believeth."
After the reader is brought through an extended outline of the peculiar sins of the
Gentiles and the Jews (1:18-3:20), then the righteousness for the sinner is revealed
through Jesus Christ (3:21-22), against the backdrop of the universality of sin in all
mankind (3:23). The sinner, theologically, is brought to that distinctive Reformation
emphasis of Justification by Faith (3:24-5:11).
The Adamic Sin Nature is then acknowledged (5:12-21), and finally, the doctrine
of sanctification is introduced and revealed (6:1-8:39). Romans, chapter six, is revealed
to the believer, justified, in the subjunctive mood to question that believer if he should
continue (6:1) under the dominion (6:9) of "the sin" (Greek; 6:1), which by the presence
of the definite article referring back to the Adamic Sin as a reigning king (5:17) in the life
of the justified believer. This king is also called "our old man" (6:6).
Although the word "destroyed" (6:6) does not mean annihilation of the sin nature,
yet is does mean "to render the old man inoperative," or to destroy the power and
dominion (6:9; Lordship) of the inherited sin nature.
The seven aorist tenses are set forth in seven words: "dead" (6:2), "baptized"
(6:3), "buried" (6:4), "raised" (6:4), "planted" (6:5), "crucified" (6:6), and "destroyed"
(6:6). The aorist tense is a punctiliar tense, indicating that there is, theologically, a crisis
here. Our word "crisis" comes from the Greek word (krino; krisis) rooted in the word
"judgement." The Holy Spirit takes the revealed Word of God concerning the doctrine of
sanctification and "judges" the believer's obedience to God concerning the power and
dominion of sin in the flesh. This causes a crisis to occur in the believer's war with the
flesh in neglecting the "walk after the Spirit" (cf. 6:4&8; 1&4). The believer's soul cries
out: "O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"
(7:24). Of course, the Victory of the Sacrifice of the Son of God, in a co-crucifixion with
the believer brings the victory over the lordship of sin in the believer's life. The believer,
"henceforth" (from 6:6b; the crisis) is to be no longer a slave to the power of the flesh in
his Christian life (6:9b). Romans, chapter six, is conditioned to the believer's "reckoning"
(6:11), "obedience" (6:12b,16,17), and "yielding" (6:13,16,19) in the present tense. The
result is clear:
Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
(Romans 6:12)
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
(Romans 6:14)
Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. (Romans
6:18)
202
But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto
holiness, and the end everlasting life.(Romans 6:22)
But this sevenfold crisis leads to the "walk" in holiness (6:4 & 8:1 & 4); the process, the
quest, and the life must follow. We must have our "fruit unto holiness and the end
everlasting life" (6:22b). The entire eighth chapter of Romans summarizes that
"walk...after the Spirit," "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (cf. Romans
8:1-4 & Galatians 4:19-31).
There has been much said and written with the question "was the war of the flesh
in Romans, chapter seven, the life of Paul as a Christian, personally?" The answer lies
in the past tense of Paul's life and not the present as is clear in his own words:
For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in
our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that
being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit and not in
the oldness of the letter. (Romans 7:5,6)."
***************************************************************************************************
The matter in question is whether Romans 7 is Paul's current experience or a past one
that he has gotten the victory over. I would tend to agree with Spence that the struggle
with Romans 7 is not a lifelong condition but is a crises in the life as the believer
struggles with sin and carnality in his life. Eventually, he comes out of that struggle and
enjoys victory over the reign of sin in his life. Of course, this has nothing to do with
sinless perfection or eradication of the sin nature, but rather it deals with the dominating
power of sin has been broken by the power of God in the life of the believer. We will
never be fully and truly free from the power and presence of sin until we get to heaven
and receive our glorified body.
The tricky part in all this is that there are many aorist verbs in Romans 6 but Paul uses
present tense verbs in Romans 7:14-25. There are 42 Greek verbs in that passage and
none of them are in the aorist, but 38 are in the present tense. Paul uses 38 present
tense verbs to describe his crises in Romans 7:14-25. Is the crises still ongoing in his
life as he writes Romans 7 or is he aware that the struggle with sin is never truly over in
the life of a believer, even if he has broken the power of that sin in his life? By the use
of the present tense, Paul shows that he is in that crises at the time of his writing
Romans 7. Paul had NOT received the total and final victory over his sin nature yet nor
was Paul sinlessly perfect at the time he wrote that. The struggle never ends on earth,
although we can enjoy more and more victory over sin and our sinful nature as we go
further with God and develop more spiritual maturity. Paul knew where the victory was
and how to apply it to his life. That is where the struggle was rooted, in that Paul had a
desire to have the power of the flesh broken in his life and to go one with God in the
power of the Spirit. Whenever and believer declares war on his flesh in that manner,
the struggle is on. This is why many professing Christians know nothing of the struggle
as they have never developed the desire to break the power of the flesh in their lives, so
203
they have never declared war on their indwelling old nature. Since no war is declared in
their lives, there is no struggle since they are at peace with their own carnalities.
204
Romans Chapter 7
As the law cannot produce justification, Paul now says that the law cannot produce
sanctification nor can it deliver from the flesh.
“Paul describes men as being either natural, carnal or spiritual. The natural man is the
unsaved man who can rise no higher than his intellectual, moral or volitional powers can
lift him. He is ruled by his senses. The carnal man is a saved man still dominated at
least partially by the power of sin and under the control of the old nature. The spiritual
man is the believer whose life is controlled by the Holy Spirit. These three “men” are in
view in Romans 7 (John Phillips, Exploring Romans, page 111).”
**************************************************************************************************
57. The Example of Marriage 7:1-4
7:1 Know ye not,a-present brethren, (for I speakpresent to them that knowpresent participle the
law,)b how that the law hath dominionc-2961 over present a man as long as he liveth?dpresent
1a “know ye not” See notes under 6:3. The Tyndale is the only translation that
renders this as “Remember ye not…”.
1b “them that know the law” There must have been a sizeable Jewish element to the
church in Rome as Paul assumes many of them would understand the following
illustration, which is straight from the Jewish law.
1c “dominion” Just as the husband is the lord over his wife, sin has the same lordship
over all mankind.
1d “as long as he liveth” This is why it is necessary to die to sin as Paul talked about
in Romans 6. As long as a man is alive, he is under dominion of the things of the world,
including sin. In order to escape such a condition, the believer must die. Death is the
only release from the dominion of sin for the believer in this life. Death cancels all
obligations and debts and release from all civil obligations.
Divorce is not in view here because divorce does not involve a death. You may
legally dissolve a marriage through divorce but not physically or even emotionally, many
times. Paul is talking about a clean break and dissolution of the marriage relationship
by death and not by divorce.
The Tyndale has this “as long as it endureth” which would refer to the law and
not the man. The other translations have this as the King James, so we would think this
would be a translation error on the part of the Tyndale.
****************************************************************************************************
205
7:2 For the woman which hath an husbanda is boundb-perfect passive by the law to her
husband so long as he liveth;present but if the husband be dead,aorist subjunctive she is
loosedperfect passive from the law of her husband.c-d
2a The pre-King James translations do not use “husband” but have “bound to a man”.
The King James and ESV render this to refer to the marriage relationship.
2b “is bound” is Strong's #1210 dew deô, has the idea of obliging by a moral or
religious obligation. We are under obligation to sin. We choose sin voluntarily and we
then have an obligation to serve and be in subjection to the master which we have
chosen.
2c Under Jewish law, the wife could not divorce her husband, although the husband
could divorce his wife, as in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. If trapped in an unhappy marriage,
there was nothing the wife could do to escape it except wait for the death of her
husband. Then she could remarry. Things were quite different under Roman law,
where either partner could end the marriage, which was why divorce was fairly common
in Paul s day, as it is in ours. “
Moreover, in Roman law, a woman was not freed from the law of her husband by
his death, since she was obliged to mourn his death and to remain unmarried for 12
months; otherwise she would forfeit everything which had come to her from her first
husband (James D.G. Dunn, Romans in Word Biblical Commentary, volume 38A, page
360).”
2d “law of her husband” Paul, in describing the relation of the believer to sin draws a
parallel to the relationship between a woman to her husband. She is married to a
husband, Sin Law. He is a rotten husband who cares nothing for her. He is a tyrant.
But she meets Christ and would rather be his wife. But as long as her first husband is
alive, she cannot marry Christ until Sin dies. But he does die, freeing her from her
obligation to him. She is then free to marry Christ as a second husband. As long as the
husband is alive, she is in subjection to her husband. The only way out of that
relationship is by the death of the husband. "What about divorce or desertion?" you
say? That would only be allowed if the husband would desert the wife. Unfortunately,
sin will not desert us nor will it neglect us. It will pay us very close and constant
attention and, like Christ, will never leave us nor forsake us. But when the husband
dies, the wife also dies in her relationship to the marriage. So by the death of the sinhusband, the wife also ends up dying to her husband and dissolving the marriage.
****************************************************************************************************
7:3 So then if, while her husbanda liveth,present participle she be marriedaorist middle subjunctive
to another man, she shall be calledfuture an adulteress:b but if her husband be
dead,aorist subjunctive she ispresent free from that law; so that she isinfinitive no adulteress,b
though she be marriedaorist middle participle to another man.c-d
206
3a The pre-King James translations do not use “husband” but have “bound to a man”.
The King James and ESV render this to refer to the marriage relationship, as in verse 2.
3b “she shall be called an adultress” Again, because the wife could not divorce her
husband under Jewish law. If she left her husband while he was still living, and he had
not divorced her, and took up with another man, she would be an adulterer.
How then is the believer an adulteress? By living for Christ yet still serving sin in
his life. The "husband of sin" is still alive and has not been put to death. When sin dies
in our life, we sever our marriage relationship to sin and enter into a new one with
Christ. If we are thus married to Christ, why should we go and serve our former
husband by continual willful sin? That is spiritual adultery. This is why we must make
up our minds once and for all if we are going to look to the Law for our justification or
Christ, to ourselves or to Him. We must choose one for we cannot choose both.
The Tyndale, Coverdale and Bishops have this as a “wedlock breaker”, the idea
of someone who has broken the marriage covenant.
3c A woman can only be married to one man at a time, lest she be called an
adulteress. She must either be with her husband or be an adulteress. For the sinner,
his husband is sin but until he is born again, he will desire no other. The point here is to
the believer. In order to get out of his relationship with the law, he must die. Death
terminates the marriage contract (regardless of Mormon doctrine). The marriagerelation between sin and the believer is not severed by any form of spiritual divorce but
only by the believer dying to that sin. We cannot “file for divorce” so death is the only
way out of our “marriage” to sin.
3d So we are a bride to either sin or Christ, one or the other. Every man is married
spiritually, either to sin (if he is unsaved) or to Christ (if he be a Christian). In this
regard, all of mankind is the “bride” married either to a harsh husband (sin) or to the
best of all husbands (Christ). Before our salvation, we were married to sin and the
world. This is the lot of every man. But our husband treated us so badly, we
wanted a divorce. But we were not able to sue for divorce since the woman in a
marriage (us) had to legal right to do so in Jewish law. Either we had to die or our
husband had to die in order to be freed from our husband so that we could marry Christ.
We met Christ, fell in love with Him, and desired to be His bride. The only way this
could be done was if we died or if our husband (sin) died. We died at salvation- died to
sin and self, thus freeing ourselves from our spiritual marriage to sin and making it
possible for us to take a new husband in salvation- Christ.
We must be married to either sin or to Christ. There is no middle ground or
vacuum in who has the lordship over the life of the believer. It is one or the other, either
sin or Christ. If you are lost, then you are married to sin and cannot be married to
Christ. If you are saved, you must be fully married to and consecrated to Christ lest you
be found a spiritual adulteress by continuing in sin. A believer who goes back under law
commits adultery against Christ. He is married to Christ yet then goes back to his old
husband, sin, whom he divorced by death. This gives the believer two husbands (Sin
and Christ), thus making him both an adulterer and a polygamist. Christians, who fiddle
207
with sin after salvation or who are otherwise unfaithful or neglectful of grace, are poor
spouses!
The same is true with the believer who goes back to the law for his justification.
You are dead to the law. Why are you running back to it? You are married to Christ.
Why are you running back to your old husband? You must choose one husband to
“justify” you, either the Law of Christ. You cannot place your loyalties and love to both.
This is aimed at the Judaizer, who claims to be saved by grace but tries to be justified
by the Law. He is guilty of spiritual adultery against his husband, Christ. All who
promote a works-based salvation are guilty of such adultery against Christ.
Thus, the sinner cannot serve God and the Christian cannot serve sin. To do so
would make one guilty of spiritual adultery. The unsaved man will be unfaithful to his
husband (sin) if he gets religious (how many unsaved preachers are spiritual adulterers
against their true spiritual husband, sin, while they fool around with Christ!). And if a
Christian backslides and goes back into sin (or goes back to the law for his spiritual
justification), then he commits spiritual adultery against Christ. Both are serious
offenses, calling for the death penalty under the Mosaic Law.
The Coverdale really makes no mention of a remarriage at the end of this verse.
****************************************************************************************************
7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become deada-aorist passive to the law by the
body of Christ; that ye should be marriedaorist middle infinitive to another,a even to him
who is raisedaorist passive participle from the dead,b-c that we should bring forth fruitaorist
subjunctive
unto God.d-e
4a Again, the pre-King James translations do not use “married” but “coupled”, except
for the Coverdale which makes no reference to any kind of marriage at all. The ESV
does not use marriage language here either.
4b "Are become dead", “from the dead” Strong's #2289 yanatow thanatoô, signifying
a violent death, similar to the death of Christ. Death to sin is a violent death because it
involves crucifixion. See remarks under Romans 6:6,11.
4c We can choose either to die or not to die to sin. We have free will in this choice.
The first choice comes at the moment of salvation. Will we accept Christ and become
dead positionally dead to sin or not? If so, we die to sin in a positional sense although
not in a practical one. This second choice comes later in the Christian life when the
believer reaches the crises experience in his life. There will be a time in the life of every
believer when the Lord will dead in a very certain and specific manner regarding sin in
the life of that believer. The Lord will ask him "Will you take the next step in your life
and strengthen your relation to me by forsaking that sin and seeking after holiness or
not?" This is where we die to sin practically. To be fully free from the lordship of sin, we
must die both times. We must accept Christ and die to sin positionally and then die to
sin in our life practically in the crises experience of sanctification. Dying in this manner is
the only way that we can be made free from sin.
208
4d Paul mentions the reason why Christ desires us to be married to Him, in order that
we might bring forth fruit unto Him. This is spiritual fruit which is produced in our
continuing spiritual progress as described by the 9-fold fruit of the Spirit of Galatians
5:22,23.
4e Death breaks all bonds, husband and wife, master and servant.
****************************************************************************************************
58. Delivered From The Law 7:5,6
7:5 For when we wereimperfect in the flesh,a the motionsb of sins, which were by the
law, did workimperfect middle in our members to bringaorist infinitive forth fruit unto death.c
5a "In the flesh" is our condition while we are in sin. We cannot live in sin and be in
the spirit at the same time. "While we were in the flesh" then has reference to the
unsaved state of man who is married to sin, serves sin and bring forth fruit unto death.
5b “Motions” is an older English word meaning “emotions” or “impulses”. The other
versions have this as “lusts” or “affections”. The ESV uses “sinful passions”.
5c “fruit unto death” This relates back to 6:23 about the wages of sin being death.
Being married to sin means serving sin and bring forth fruit unto sin which leads to
death. This is not the fruit desired by Christ in 7:4.
****************************************************************************************************
7:6 But now we are deliveredaorist middle from the law,a-b that being deadaorist participle
wherein we were held;c-imperfect passive that we should serveinfinitive in newness of
spirit,d and not in the oldnessd of the letter.
6a We are delivered from the law in the new birth. How so? We are delivered from
the penalty of the law when we are born again. We will not be judged by it because
Christ, who died for us, already has been judged according to the law in our place. He
suffered our penalty demanded by the law, which is death. Hence we stand perfect in
the sight of the law due to the death of Christ. Yet the law still exists, does it not?
Exodus 20 is still in the Christian's Bible. Although we will not be judged according to it,
we are responsible to it because it remains God's standard of holiness and it continues
to define sin for the believer. We still study it, honor it and pattern our lives according to
it. We are delivered from the power of the law but not from our obligation to it in the
sense of ceasing from sin. That is what the law does, define sin for us. In order to
avoid sin, we need to know what it is we are supposed to be avoiding and that
knowledge only comes from a study of, understanding of and acceptance of the
doctrines of the law. But our salvation has no bearing to our relation to the law, since
that salvation has already been purchased by Christ. The law rather helps us in our life
and relation to God but does not affect our salvation.
209
6b To be delivered from sin is the same thing as to be delivered from the law.
Subjection to either and both brings condemnation. To be delivered from one is to be
delivered from the other. We cannot go half-way on this. We cannot be freed from the
law yet still in subjection to sin, nor can we be dead to sin but still in condemnation
under the law. Thus we are delivered from the law so that we may serve the Lord in the
newness of life.
6c “wherein we were held” Since we have been crucified with Christ, and are dead in
sin (Galatians 2:19), we are now freed from the demands of the law that we may marry
Christ. The Bishops Bible has the strongest rendering of this as being “in bondage”.
6d Tyndale and Coverdale have this as “conversation”.
****************************************************************************************************
The passage 7:7-25 details Paul’s personal experience of his own spiritual helplessness
is trying to keep the law and please God in his own power. Eventually, every worksbased salvation system winds up at Romans 7:7-25 and ends in a dead end, unable to
progress to the blessed truths of Romans 8. Only salvation by faith through grace
without the works of the law can go beyond the failures and helpless condition
described in Romans 7.
****************************************************************************************************
59. Is the Law Sin? 7:7-12
7:7 What shall we sayfuture then? Is the law sin?a God forbid.b-aorist optative middle Nay, I
had not knownaorist sin, but by the law:c for I had not knownpluperfect lust,d except the
law had said,imperfect Thou shalt not covet.e-f-future
7a “Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay…” Paul uses the strongest Greek negative
wording he can to shoot down any idea that the law is sinful.
7b “God forbid” Dismiss the thought! Away with the thought! Let it not be! This phrase
is used 14 times by Paul (10 times in Romans alone [3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14;
11:1,11]). It is the strongest Greek idiom for repudiating a statement, and it contains a
sense of outrage that anyone would even dare think or suggest such a thing.
7c The sin problem in man does not stem from the law but from man. Our problems
with the law come from our misuse of it and our misunderstanding of it. The law is not
responsible for our sin. We cannot blame the law for our sins but must blame
ourselves. There is nothing wrong with the law, as it is perfect. The Law is God’s Great
Detective of Sin, defining it and searching it out for all to see. God Himself gave the
Law so there is no flaw in the law and it cannot be sinful. Paul gives the purpose of the
law, to define sin. Paul says he would not known what sin was unless God had given a
law. In this sense, the law did us a favor. Yes it condemned us but it led us to salvation
by grace. We now know what sin is. We know what our problem is and what the
210
source of it is. We cannot deal with a problem unless we know what it is. The law
diagnosed our sin problem. Once the problem was determined, finding the remedy is
easy.
7d “lust” “The moment the law said, "Thou shalt not lust," why you might as well tell
me not to be a man. Even if my will is right-the case supposed here-yet I am in such a
state that I cannot succeed in mastering the flesh (John N. Darby, A Few Detached
Notes on Romans 7).”
7e “thou shalt not covet” The Tenth Commandment (Exodus 20:17) is repeated by
Paul, showing that it is still in force in the New Testament age and has not been
rescinded. It is still a sin to covet today. The only commandment not repeated in the
New Testament is the Fourth, regarding the Sabbath, since that is a covenant sign with
Israel that is not binding upon the Church.
The pre-King James translations render “covet” as “lust”. The King James and
ESV use “covet”.
7f Lust here is equated with covetousness. Lust is the intense desire for something
that we are not permitted to have or that we should not have.
****************************************************************************************************
7:8 But sin, takingaorist active participle occasiona by the commandment, wroughtaorist middle
in me all manner of concupiscence.b For without the law sin was dead.
8a “sin taking occasion” Sin, by the law, took full advantage of Paul in his ignorance
before he came to know sin by the law, making a wreck of his life.
8b Paul gives sin qualities of a living, conscience being with a will, almost making it
sound as if it were alive.
The Coverdale has this as “stirred up in me all manner of lust” which is a good
definition of “all manner of concupiscence”. The ESV is much weaker in having “all
kinds of covetousness”.
Strong’s #1939 epiyumia epithumia; desire, craving, longing, desire for what is
forbidden, lust. The epi- prefix intensifies the word. “Concupiscence” is from the Latin
con-, with + cupi, cupid - desire (usually sexual) + -escere - suffix denoting beginning of
a process or state. It has the idea of an ardent, usually sensuous, longing; a strong
sexual desire or lust, a selfish human desire for an object, person, or experience
***************************************************************************************************
7:9 For Ia was aliveimperfect without the law once:b but when the commandment
came,aorist active participle sin revived,c-aorist and Ia died.d-aorist
9a Emphatic.
211
9b “I was alive without the law once” In his ignorance of the law. Paul didn't know
what sin was without the law to tell him. In his ignorance of the law, Paul thought he
was pretty good. Paul was very religious and thought all was well. But one day, he
learned about the true nature and meaning of the law, revealing that in the eyes of the
law, he was anything but alright. Paul knew about the law as a Pharisee but did not
understand it. That came at the time of his conversion and that understanding led to his
conversion. Sin was revived in Paul's life when that understanding of the law entered
his life. The law then killed him by showing him his condemned state before God. The
law punctured Paul's balloon of self-justification! The law brought a revival- a revival of
sin, which would later lead to his new birth. He went from a deceived religious man who
imagined himself alive to a man waiting for the judgment of God to fall upon him.
9c We think the ESV’s “sin came alive” is a weaker rendering than what the other
translations have as “sin revived”. If the ESV had rendered this as “sin came alive
again” it would have been more acceptable.
9d The Geneva and Bishops pushe the last part of verse 9 into verse 10.
***************************************************************************************************
7:10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I foundaorist passive to be
unto death.a-b
10a Paul found the law to be death rather than life. How could something that brings
death really be said to be "ordained to life"? Because the law puts the self-righteous
sinner into a corner and strips away his veneer. By the time the law finishes with the
sinner, he has one foot in hell. When God gets a man into that position, then the Holy
Spirit can start to deal about the sin in that man's life in order to bring him to repentance.
The old saying "You can't get a man saved until you get him lost" is very true. This is
what the law does- gets you lost so that God can get you into a position that He can
bring you to salvation.
10b The Geneva, King James and ESV are stronger than the other translations having
this “as an occasion of death”. No, it was death, not just an “occasion” for death!
***************************************************************************************************
7:11 For sin, takingaorist active participle occasion by the commandment, deceiveda-aorist
me,b and by it slewaorist me.c
11a The word "deceived" is exapataw exapataô (Strong's #1818; from ek ek, (Strong’s
#1537) an intensive, and apataw apataô" (Strong’s #538), to seduce, meaning to
seduce wholly, lead out of the right way to error. This is what sin always does. It tries to
make us think that we are really okay and that our sin is really too unimportant for God
to worry about. Sin deceives us into thinking there is no hell or judgment. When we
have been so seduced, then we are sitting ducks for the kill- when we realize (often too
late) that we were lied to by sin and payday has come and the price is more than we
212
can pay. As they say, sin will always take you farther than you want to go and will
always charge you more than you want to pay. No right-thinking man would hold such a
low view of sin unless he was deceived and seduced into doing so.
11b “For sin…deceived me…” Sin had literally seduced Paul, lied to him and had
made itself appealing to him. Paul, like all men, fell for it and suffered the
consequences. On this side of that seduction, with the 20-20 hindsight of experience,
we can we see the three ways sin deceives all of us:
1. That there is satisfaction in sin. But sin is like a cigarette. There used to be
commercials for Camel cigarettes that stated “They satisfy!” But that was a lie. If
cigarettes satisfied, there would be one stick in the package. You’d smoke it and then
you would be satisfied! Sin is the same way. We think that wallowing in the flesh will
somehow bring a satisfaction to our souls, but we are proven wrong every time. Only a
right relation with God brings this kind of satisfaction that we seek.
2. That we can excuse sin. We can justify our sins very well, that somehow,
we are entitled to this sin, or that God has to allow us some sin. But there is no
justification for sin that God will accept. All unrighteousness is sin, no matter the
circumstances or motivations behind it.
3. That we will escape the judgment for sin. Every man, in the dark corners of
his mind, thinks that somehow, God will not judge him for his sins, or that he will
somehow be able to escape judgment. No man sins with the thought they he will
actually pay the penalty for his sin. No one robs a bank with the expectation that he will
get caught and go to jail, but rather, he has the hope that he will somehow be able to
escape the long arm of the law. But sin catches up with us…eventually. We must be
sure that our sin will indeed find us out.
11c Sin uses the law to try to swallow the sinner up in despair in thinking that he is too
bad to be saved. This is a natural and logical position for the sinner to find himself in.
Once the law gets done with him, sin comes and says "According to the law, you are far
too sinful to be saved!" The sinner then despairs and believes himself as good as in
hell. He fells God could never save someone as bad as him. A man must be killed by
sin via the law before he can be made alive by Grace.
****************************************************************************************************
7:12a Wherefore the law is holy,b-c and the commandment holy, and just, and
good.d
12a This is the same idea as in 7:7 in that the law is not sin, nor is it evil. It is holy,
justand good, regardless of the evil it may seem to do unto sinners. But remember,
although it seems evil, it is eventually for the sinner's own good. The problem is not with
God or His law but it lies with us and our sin. One cannot blame the law for the plight of
the sinner. It is the misuse and misunderstanding of the law and its ministry to us that
causes the problem.
213
12b “the law is holy…” The Law is holy because it was given by a holy God. How
then could the Law be other than holy?
12c “the law is…just” The Law is just because God is just and is a God of justice.
Man-made law-codes cannot said to be “just” because man is not just. There are
loopholes galore and if you are crooked enough or have enough money or contacts, you
can pervert justice to your favor. But such cannot be done with the Law of God. There
are no such loopholes and justice cannot be perverted under a divine system and code
of law.
12d “the law is…good” The Law is good because God is good. Manmade law codes
can be evil since the heart and intellect of man is depraved and sinful. But since God is
good and since there is no darkness in Him, we can expect His law code to be as good
as the One Who gave it.
****************************************************************************************************
60. The Ministry of the Law 7:13
7:13a Was then that which is good madeperfect death unto me? God forbid.7b-aorist
subjunctive middle
But sin, that it might appearaorist subjunctive passive sin, workingpresent
middle/passive participle
death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment
might becomeaorist subjunctive middle exceeding sinful.b-c
13a It is through a misunderstanding of the law that it seemed that something that was
good (the law) was made something that was made death (sin) unto Paul. The law did
not create sin, it only defined it and allowed a grounds to punish it and provided a way
to escape its condemnation. The law makes sin exceedingly sinful in order to bring us
to the point that we realize we are spiritually dead so that God could revive us by grace.
It is necessary to recognize the sinfulness of sin. Sin is not just a mistake or a slip- it is
a deliberate, high-handed attack on the holiness of God. Sin is not just sinful but is
exceedingly so. The law magnifies the sinfulness of sin. Without the law to do this,
men would not realize the scope of the sin problem or the sinfulness of sin. But the law
came, defined sin, magnified it to the point that it shut up the sinner in his corner of
spiritual death and put the sinner into the position that God could save him.
13b “Sin, like the deadly frost of the northern regions, benumbs its victim before it slays
him. Man is so diseased that he fancies his disease to be health and judges healthy
men to be under wild delusions. He loves the enemy which destroys him! He warms at
his bosom the viper whose fangs cause his death. The most unhappy thing that can
happen to a man is for him to be sinful and to judge his sinfulness to be righteousness!
The Papist advances to his altar and bows before a piece of bread—but he does not
feel that he is committing idolatry—no, he believes that he is acting in a praiseworthy
manner! The persecutor hounded his fellow creatures to prison and to death, but he
thought he verily did God a service! You and I can see the idolatry of the Papist and the
murder committed by the persecutor—but the guilty persons do not see it (Charles
214
Spurgeon, “The Monster Dragged to Light”, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, volume 19
sermon 1095).”
This shows us that sin, when it appears to us, usually does not appear to be sin.
We can justify anything, even sin. When we sin, we either see it as something else or
the sin itself comes to us in a disguise, deceiving us into thinking that it is not really sin.
A man may steal from work and then justify it that his employer underpays him or that
he has to provide extra for his family. But it is sin. A man may start an adulterous affair
with another woman because he has convinced himself that his wife no longer loves
him. The adultery presents itself to its victim as a necessity, if not a virtue, but it is still
sin. When a man sees his sin as sin and as nothing else, he is in a position to repent,
beg forgiveness from God and be saved.
13c The pre-King James tramnslations have the idea of sin “being out of measure” for
“exceedingly sinful”.
****************************************************************************************************
61. The War Within 7:14-25
The main ideas in this passage are:
1. There is no sinless perfection in this life.
2. We can live blameless but not sinless.
3. Even a mature saint like Paul struggled with his own sin nature and he never
“attained” any sort of sinless perfection
4. many people get discouraged when they don’t stop sinning after a period of
years and they begin to despair and to doubt their salvation as they try to attain their
idea of “perfection” apart from the power of Christ for any and all victory comes from His
indwelling power in our lives.
****************************************************************************************************
7:14a For we knowb-perfect that the law ispresent spiritual:c but Id ampresent carnal,e-f-4559
soldg-perfect passive participle under sin.h
14a In this passage (verses 14-25), Paul is baring his very soul and that very personal
struggle that he had with his own sin nature. Few men would be willing to write such a
candid admission of their own personal struggle with their sin and sinful nature. Too
many preachers want to paint themselves as some super saint, far more spiritual than
everyone else, who has no trouble with sin or his sinful nature. To admit that they still
have these struggles would be an admission of weakness that would somehow damage
the personality cult that they have erected around themselves. It would hurt their image
and income! But Paul wanted to be brutally honest with himself, his readers, those he
ministered unto, and to God.
14b A self-evident truth that needed no defense.
215
14c The problem is not the law as it is spiritual and it came from God. The problems
come from man’s misunderstanding of the law, misapplication and misuse of the law
and man’s rebellion against the law.
14d Emphatic.
14e "Carnal" is Strong's #4559 sarkikov sarkikos, similar to the Greek word for flesh,
"sarx". When Paul condemns himself as being carnal, he is acting, living and thinking in
the flesh, as are all of us. It is the exact opposite of being spiritual, or "in Christ".
14f “I am carnal” This is the root of our problem- it is our fallen Adamic natures, not
the Law. The Law cannot force us to sin nor does it have any bearing on our natures. It
simply defines sin and condemns of sin when violated.
From this admission, Paul is brutally honest about how he view his spiritual state.
He was “carnal” despite all the churches he planted, all the souls he led to Christ, all the
revelations he received from God and the fact that he was writing Scripture. If Paul, at
any time in his life, would have claimed that he was without sin, he knew that he would
have made a liar out of God (1 John 1:10) and the truth would not have been in him (1
John 1:8)
There is really no good reason for the ESV to drop pff “carnal” and use “of the
flesh”. It’s technically correct, but why omit “carnal”, seeing it is still a word in wide
usage today?
14g “sold” We are sold as a slave to a harsh taskmaster known as "sin". Sin was our
master as we were sold to it and were under its domain.
14h “sold under sin” Sold as a slave. Paul emphasizes again that the law that made
him a sinner in a legal sense before God was spiritual, not evil. Paul was carnal and
sinful, not the law. As a result of this proper understanding of the law, Paul learned that
he was not religious but carnal and that he was not a free man as he thought so in his
religious pride but was a slave, sold under sin and was under the domination of the
cruelest of all taskmasters.
***************************************************************************************************
7:15a-b-c For that which I doc-present passive/middle I allowe-present not: for what I would,present
thatf dob Ipresent not; but what I hate,present thatf dod-present I.
15a Verses 15-24 detail the inner struggle with sin and the indwelling sin nature that
Paul grappled with, that we all deal with. This is the same battle we who are saved and
who desire to live for God also fight on a continual basis. Only a man with the head of a
theologian but the heart of a divine will come to a proper understanding of the passage.
The ones best able to comment on the passage would be those men who had attained
a high degree of personal holiness in their own lives. We would do well to read the
writings of John Wesley, Robert Murray McCheyne, Samuel Rutherford, Andrew
Murray, Isaac Watts, William Cowper, J. C. Ryle, A. B. Simpson, Edward Payson,
216
Andrew Bonar, Ashael Nettleton and others of that mold to gain a full understanding of
the battle and struggle with sin and our ultimate victory over it.
Paul's struggle was between his old man of the sin nature and the new man of
his divine, sinless nature. Both sides were battling for domination of Paul. Although
Paul was saved, Satan, sin and the old man never give up their bid to control the heart
of the believer. Salvation does not eradicate the sin nature. It merely provides it
competition, with the new, divine nature, that cannot sin.
This great spiritual battle resulted in a failure on Paul's part to do the things his
new nature desired to do. He wanted to serve God but his old man would always
interfere. His indwelling sin nature had no intention of cooperating with Paul’s desire to
serve God. Although Paul said in Galatians 2:20 that he was crucified with Christ and
died daily, the old man still won periodic victories over Paul. He wanted to do right but
did not always do so. He wanted to avoid sin but he sometimes slipped. The winner at
any one time is the nature that is stronger at that moment, the one we have fed the
most, spiritually.
If the great apostle Paul underwent this struggle, then we should also expect to
fight this battle in our own life. It is a good sign that we do experience such struggles as
it shows us that the old man has something that is strong enough and that is enough of
a threat to it to warrant a fight in the new nature. The presence of such a struggle is a
sign that we are saved and that we are in possession of a divine nature through the new
birth. The very presence of the inward struggle shows us that we have the dual
natures, unlike the unsaved man, who possesses only the singular, fallen nature. Many
Christians never experience this battle on this scale because their new nature is so
weak that it cannot put up any sort of resistance to the old man and it wins every time.
But the man with a healthy divine nature deliberately sets out to do that which is good
and the old man fights him every step of the way.
Paul writes this passage in the present tense showing that he was in this struggle
at the present time of this writing. There is only one perfect tense used in this passage,
in 7:18. Everything else is present tense, showing Paul was fighting these battles
NOW, not in the past. He had not gotten the final victory over them at the time of this
writing. Paul, even at this stage of his ministry, fought this daily, intense struggle with
sin. Paul was never sinless. He never had his old man eradicated, not even at his new
birth, and he was never "totally sanctified". He was totally dedicated to God and spent
his life in the Gospel service and wrote two-thirds of our New Testament but he had a
daily struggle with sin. Fighting sin strengthened Paul spiritually, more than if had no
struggle at all. Fighting is exercise. You get to know your enemy much better if you are
engaged in hand-to-hand combat with it. By virtue of his struggles, Paul had a much
deeper understanding of both himself and sin that if had never fought such battles.
Christians who imagine themselves fully sanctified or who think their old natures to be
eradicated never fight these battles and thus have a much weaker understanding of sin
and are spiritually weaker than those who fight these inner battles.
Naturally, the unsaved man who just has the one old Adamic nature knows
nothing of the struggle. How can he when he possesses no divine nature? There is
nothing in him for old Adam to fight against, hence no struggle.
217
We are dealing with the two natures of the believer. Every Christian has two
natures, an old one inherited from Adam at birth and a new one bestowed by Christ at
the new birth. In a sense, Christians are schizophrenic as we do have two natures. We
have the "Jekyll-and-Hyde" complex of an indwelling monster and an angel in the same
body. In the flesh, even a Christian is capable of the most hideous sins because he still
has the same nature as any unsaved man has. The difference lies in the new nature
which should serve as a check on the old man and can overpower it in ultimate victory.
15b Some deny the dual natures of the Christian, such as J. F. Dake, the Pentecostal
commentator. Consider the following incorrect statements from his Dake Study Bible:
1. Commenting on 7:24 "This is not a picture of a redeemed soul but of a captive
of sin. Every statement in this chapter proves that this was Paul's experience while
bound by sin under the law before he was freed from the law of sin and death...His
testimony indicates deliverance was after the 3 days of blindness at Damascus (Acts
9:17,18). The experience must have been during those 3 days..." Naturally this is false
for Paul makes no such mention of his Acts 9 experience anywhere in Romans.
2. Commenting on 7:25 "Many have used these words to prove Paul, himself,
was not saved from sin. This would contradict all the arguments of Romans up to this
point..." No, it does no such think, despite what Dake claimed.
3. Commenting on 8:1 "This proves that the experience of 7:7-24 was not Paul's
at the time of the writing of Romans..."
4. Commenting on 6:6, Dake identifies the "old man" as Satan rather than the old
sinful, Adamic nature which still infects the Christian. "There is no such thing as an old
nature other than man's own body, soul and spirit dominated by satanic powers..."
Dake then contradicts himself without realizing it. The old man is the "soul and spirit" of
man that is still under the control of sin, a Satanic power, exactly what we have been
saying all along. Dake was obviously unfamiliar with the truth of 1 John 1:8 "if we say
we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us". Dake rejects these
verses since he has an incorrect presupposition of sinless perfection after a “second
blessing”, which he strives to maintain, despite the clear Biblical teaching on this issue.
He let his Pentecostal theological system interfere with his commentating. Dake has
many other serious theological errors in his writings and in his “study Bible” which is
why we cannot recommend it but rather, must warn against it.
Robert Haldane, in his An Exposition of Romans, on page 302, showing he
understood Paul's anguish better than Dake and his followers did, summarizes the
chapter thusly: "The warfare between the flesh and the spirit has greatly exercised the
ingenuity of men not practically acquainted with its truth. Few are willing to believe that
the best of men are so bad as they are here represented, and it is fondly imagined that
the best of men are much better than this description would prove them to be. Every
effort of ingenuity has accordingly been resorted to, to divert the Apostle's statements
from the obvious conclusion to which they lead, and so to modify his doctrine as to
make it worthy of human wisdom. But they have labored in vain. Their theories not only
contradict the Apostle's doctrine, but are generally self-contradictory. Every Christian
has in his own breast a commentary on the Apostle's language. If there be anything of
which he is fully assured, it is that Paul has in this passage described his experience;
218
and the more the believer advances in knowledge and holiness, the more does he
loathe himself, as by nature a child of that corruption which still so closely cleaves to
him. So far is the feeling of the power of indwelling sin from being inconsistent with
regeneration, that it must be experienced in proportion to the progress of sanctification.
The more sensitive we are, the more do we feel pain; and the more our hearts are
purified, the more painful to us will sin be. Men perceive themselves to be sinners in
proportion as they have previously discovered the holiness of God and of His law."
Many modern commentators, not having this older and fuller understanding of
the sinfulness of sin, fail to grasp what the Puritans and the Philadelphia-age writers
understood. Phillip Doddridge said "The best prayer I ever offered up in my life
deserves damnation". Augustus Toplady said "oh that ever such a wretch as I should
be tempted to think highly of himself! I that am of myself nothing but sin and
weakness". F.B. Meyer wrote "I have acquired a reputation for sanctity by my books.
This may grow on me. It makes one want to creep into heaven unnoticed". David
Livingstone said "I am a poor, poor imitation of Christ".
Now the question arises as to whether Paul ever got the victory over himself in
regards to his sin. We believe that answer to be "yes"…eventually. There is a victory to
be won, but its final consummation will not be until we reach glory. Romans 7:25 and
chapter 8 make it clear that Paul found the victory through this crises period in his life.
There is an end to the crises if we allow the Holy Spirit to bring us through it and if we
submit ourselves to His workings in our lives. Every Christian goes into a crises
sometime after his salvation regarding sin in his life, and what he intends to do about it.
For me, I entered it in 1992 after being a Christian for 14 years. It dealt with whether I
was really serious about serving God and living a genuine Christian life or if I would be
content to live a carnal, low-level Christian life. What about my sin? What about my
carnality? What, if anything, was I going to do about it? Who would I yield to in my life
as a Christian, self or Christ? This is the crises that we all wrestle with. Too many
Christians fail here, as they refuse to go into this crucible as they decide to shun a
higher Christian life and a closer walk with God. They are saved and satisfied. They
will live a nominal Christian life. The crises for them is short and painless. But for the
Christian who has a true heart of a disciple, he will enter the crises, go into the crucible,
and allow God to break the power of sin in his life. When he emerges from that crises,
he will be on the road to becoming a genuine Christian who lives above the power of sin
and who refuses to allow sin to reign in his life. This does not mean sinless perfection
or eradication of the sin nature or a "second blessing". It is merely the breaking of the
power of sin and self in the life. Misapplication of this truth will lead to Charismatic
errors such as a "second blessing" or eradication of the sin nature, which are not taught
in the Bible.
15c The ESV prefaces verse 15 with “For I do not understand my own actions.” That is
not to be found in the text and none of the other translations (King James and prior)
have this. This is more commentary than translation.
15d Verse 15 is interesting in looking at the word "do", which is used 3 times by three
different Greek words. The verse reads as follows: "For that which I do (Strong's #2716
219
katergazomai katergazomai; do work fully, accomplish; to finish, fashion) I allow not: for
what I would, that do (Strong's #4238 prassw prassô; to practice, perform repeatedly
or habitually, to execute, accomplish; to collect (dues), fare (personally)) I not; but what I
hate, that do (Strong's #4160 poiew poieô; to make or do (single action)) I."
Retranslated, it would read "For that which I do I allow not; for what I would, that
habitually do I not; but what I hate that do I only once." Paul successfully did not do
those things which he did not want to do but only did those things (or sins) which he did
not want to do occasionally. Paul had continual victory over sin in his life but he, like all
of us, did suffer the occasional lapse since we are not perfect or totally sanctified.
15e “allow”, used by the Authorized Version in the earlier English sense of “approve”
(Marvin Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, volume 3, page 80). Vincent isn’t
right here as only the Bishop’s Bible uses “allow”.
15f Emphatic.
****************************************************************************************************
7:16 If then I dopresent thata which I wouldpresent not, I consent22a-present unto the law
that it is good.b-c
16a Emphatic.
16b The problem is not with the law but rather with us. There is not a thing wrong with
the law, until and unless it is misused. If you are using the law to define sin and to
establish human helplessness and sinfulness, then you will have no issue with the law.
When you start trying to make it a means for justification and salvation, then the
problems begin.
I may make a choice to sin, the law cannot be faulted for that because it is good,
even if and when I do bad things.
16c “…it is good.” We are not good as we are sinners by birth, choice and practice.
But the Law is good as it was given by a good God.
****************************************************************************************************
7:17 Now then it is no more Ia that dopresent middle/passive it, but sinb that dwellethc-present
active participle
in me.
17a Emphatic.
17b The culprit is sin. Paul says that it is the sin in him that causes him to sin, not
anything else in his body. The new man certainly did not desire to sin but the old nature
always does. When Paul sinned, he rightfully blamed it on the old man which Paul
allowed to be in control at that time.
220
17c “dwelleth” Sin actually takes up residence in us, and makes its home with us. Sin
houses itself in our bodies as a permanent resident, not a temporary lodger.
****************************************************************************************************
7:18 For I knowperfect that in me (that is,present in my flesh,a) dwellethpresent no good
thing:b for to willinfinitive is presentpresent middle/passive with me; but how to performpresent
infinitive middle/passive
that which is good I findpresent not.c
18a The flesh, which is the same thing as the old nature, was all of sin and contained
no spiritual good in it. There is nothing good or commendable about the old man. It is
totally corrupt and cannot be redeemed. It must be put to death by self-crucifixion and
be replaced with the new man.
18b “no good thing” Nothing! Nothing means nothing! God makes no provision for the
flesh and instead condemns it. There is nothing in the old man or in our natural sin
nature that is any good or that can be used for God. We cannot sanctify our old sins or
lifestyles or way of thinking and try to use them for God. So many try to do this today,
especially with music. A young person gets saved. Before, he was heavily into the
rock/heavy metal/hip hop (whatever) scene. After he is “saved”, he does not want to
leave his music because he still enjoys it too much, so he tries to bring it over into his
Christian life. He attempts to use an unholy thing for holy purposes, forgetting that the
Lord told him he cannot serve or love God and mammon at the same time. He must
make a choice between the things of God and the things of the world and chances are,
he will choose the world. We must condemn the flesh, crucify it, kill it, bury it, leave it
buried, and instead rely upon the new man to live and serve God. Trouble always
comes from trying to find some good thing in human sin nature, for nothing is there that
can be sanctified.
18c In the struggle, Paul desires to do good. But with sin present, how can he? With
sin obstructing his way, how can he do that which is pleasing to God? How can I grow
to be a prayer warrior? How can I be faithful? How can I be a true and genuine
Christian if I keep having these problems with sin? How can I live for God and please
Him if I keep having such a struggle with sin and my old sinful nature?
****************************************************************************************************
7:19 For the good that I wouldpresent I dopresent not: but the evil which I wouldpresent
not, that I do.a-present
19a The spirit and the new man is indeed willing to serve God but the flesh is weak
(Matthew 26:41). Paul wants to do good but doesn't. He wants to avoid sin but doesn't.
****************************************************************************************************
7:20a Now if I dopresent that Ib wouldpresent not, it is no more Ib that dopresent middle/passive
it, but sin that dwellethpresent active participle in me.c
221
20a The Tyndale sounds like it is trying to draw a conclusion by starting verse 20 with
“finally”.
20b Emphatic.
20c As in 7:17, Paul blames that old Adamic nature that was not destroyed at the new
birth. Although it must share Paul's body with that new, divine nature, the Adamic nature
doesn't like it. It still insists upon having it's was in Paul's life. When Paul sinned, it was
not him, or his divine nature that did it but rather was the old Adamic nature. This does
not do away with our personal responsibility and accountability of our sin as it is
possible to control old Adam. If he gets control, it is our fault as we let him. We made
provision for him and let him off the cross. Although it was not the divine part that
sinned, the sin remained and we still must deal with its circumstances in our life.
***************************************************************************************************
7:21 I findpresent then a law,a-b that, when I wouldpresent active participle doinfinitive good, evil
is presentpresent passive/middle with me.c
21a In verses 21-23, Paul discovered two laws working in him- the Law in his members
(old nature) that desired Paul to sin, and the Law of God, which he delighted in. His
inward man delighted in the Law of God while the outward man did not. The outward
man delighted in the law of sin while the inward man did not. Every Christian undergoes
this conflict every minute of his life. The unsaved man does not, since he has only one
nature. The Christian's conflict is caused by the two natures that abide in him. Both are
incompatible- they cannot peacefully coexist. Conflict becomes inevitable and it is a
duel to the death where no quarter is asked or given by either side.
21b “I find then a law” An unnamed law is mentioned here that we could call The Law
of the Inward Struggle. Paul, as any believer, fought between his new nature, that
wanted to do right, and his old nature, that was under the domination of sin. Paul
wanted to do right but he saw this opposing nature in his body that oftentimes drove him
to do those things that he did not want to do and that oftentimes prevented him from
doing the things he wanted to do. Evil and sin are always present with the believer, so
we must learn how to deal with them.
21c The Geneva has the idea of being “yoked with sin” rather than sin simply being
“present”. The ESV is weaker with “evil is close at hand” instead of it being “present”.
****************************************************************************************************
7:22 For I delighta-present passive/middle in the law of God after the inward man:b-c
22a Paul “consented” to the law in 7:16 but here, he “delights” in it. Verse 16 is more of
the old nature talking, being forced to acknowledge the law that it did not like. But the
new man in verse 22 “delights” in the very same law the flesh does not like. The
222
character of a godly man is to delight in the law of the Lord while the sinner and the
carnal professor tolerates it at best.
22b If you do not delight in the law of God, then you have a serious spiritual problem.
A godly man will love the law of God and seek to order his life by it and to promote it
while the carnal man will hate it, chaff under it, and seek to live under some other law
than God’s law.
22c “inward man” the new, regenerate man, the spiritual man, as opposed to the flesh
and the old, outward man. The ESV has “inner being”. That is no improvement over
“inner man”. It seems the ESV is influenced by “gender neutral” translation philosophy
here.
****************************************************************************************************
7:23 But I seepresent another law in my members, warring againsta-present middle/passive
participle
the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivityb-present to the law of sinc
which ispresent active participle in my members.
23a “warring against” The Tyndale, Geneva and Bishops all have this as “rebelling”.
23b “bringing me into captivity” Paul continues the military language with this phrase,
as if sin captured him on the field of battle and placed him into a prisoner-of-war camp.
23c Two laws mentioned in this verse:
1. The law of my mind
2. The law of sin, also mentioned in 7:25.
Neither law is described by Paul, but we would assume the “law of sin” refers to the
dominating power of sin in the life that can only be broken by dying to it through the
power of the Holy Spirit. This “law” is something that is “served” with the flesh, or the old
nature. And we also get the impression from 7:25 that one serves either the law of God
or the law of sin, but not both at the same time. The new man (the redeemed nature)
serves the law of God, but the old, Adamic sin nature serves the law of sin.
****************************************************************************************************
7:24 O wretched man that Ia am! who shall deliverfuture middle me from the body of
this death?b-c-d
24a Emphatic.
24b This is the heart-cry of every Christian who understands his own sinfulness and
who desires to be pure and holy. Remember, Paul is saved now and has been involved
in missions for years. He had received revelations from God and has done mighty signs
and wonders. Yet after considering his own failures and the corruption that still lurks in
his body, he does not boast on his holiness or attainments but rather "O wretched man
that I am!" He was saved yet not totally sanctified. Total sanctification from sin does
223
not occur in this life but only at death or rapture when we receive our sinless, glorified
bodies.
This cry is the marrow of practical Christian theology and is the burden of the
doctrine of sanctification- how shall we get the victory over our indwelling sin nature,
both in a daily, moment-by-moment practical way, and overall, spiritually? The answer
is in the next verse. We do not get the victory ourselves by anything we do but rather,
we receive the victory through the work of Christ on the cross. The problem is
becoming aware of what Christ has provided for us and successfully applying it in our
lives.
24c The "body of death" Paul mentions is an allusion to the Roman penalty of
strapping the body of the dead victim to the back of the man who murdered him. Paul,
by crucifying his old man, had, in a sense, "murdered" it (or at least had tried to). Yet
the old rotting corpse was not dropped at salvation or at the sanctification crises. Paul
carried that stinking, rotting corpse around with him day by day, infecting him with the
stench of sin. Who will unloose that body and free Paul from his sin? Christ! When?
Not today, for we must continue to fight and strive for the victory over sin our life. Only
this kind of struggle engenders to holiness. Holiness only comes to those who
understand the sinfulness of their sins and who come to a full realization of its
awfulness. We may drop the body of sin and death today, if we should graduate to
glory or be raptured today!
It is obvious then that regeneration does not destroy the body of death. The
sanctification-crises experience does not destroy the body of sin either. Only our
physical death or translation totally destroys the body of our death. What we strive for is
the absolute control over it and the putting it under submission to the divine nature.
24d In 6:6, our body was called the “body of sin”. In 7:24, Paul refers to it as the
“body of this death”.
****************************************************************************************************
7:25 I thankpresent God through Jesus Christ our Lord.a So then with the mind Ib
myself servepresent the law of God;c but with the flesh the law of sin.
25a “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord” There it is! There is the answer!
Paul found his ultimate deliverance in Christ and was able to serve God, but still not to
his full satisfaction. There was still an on-going conflict. With his mind (heart), he
served God, yet his old nature (flesh) served sin. We have deliverance from sin only in
Christ and it is available to every Christian to live a victorious life over sin and his old
nature. How few Christians take advantage of it and instead live only half-lives of
defeat!
25b Emphatic.
25c The new man serves God with the heart, mind and will, if not with the body. The
problem that every Christian struggles with is how to get the body to obey the mind. We
224
want to do something and the body of flesh fights it for it would rather sin. The flesh
serves the law of sin while the heart and mind of the Christian serves the law of God.
Moral- the Christian wants to serve God and can to a degree, but not to his full potential
because the old nature is still dying a slow death and is still kicking. Every Christian has
the two natures battling inside him, each trying to gain dominance. The winner will be
decided by which nature he feeds most.
Postscript- Romans 7
Let's summarize Paul’s arguments up to this point. Every Christian has two natures, the
old Adamic he was born with and the new divine nature he received at the new birth.
The old nature is all sinful while the new nature desires to serve God. The Adamic
nature is not eradicated at the New Birth and the believer continues to struggle with it
for the rest of his life. Every day is a contest between these natures, each desiring
dominion over the life of the believer. The Christian who has a vision of holiness and
who desires sanctification will come to realize the sinfulness of his sins and will see
himself as vile as he continues in the struggle. Paul was undergoing this struggle
between both natures as he wrote Romans. The godliest men in Church history
understood the nature of the struggle and fought the good fight as they sought to
overcome the power and presence of sin in their lives. This is a good fight and struggle,
one that makes us loathe sin all the more and love holiness all the more. The struggle
is necessary in order to attain and achieve personal holiness in the life of the believer.
Without it, the Christian lapses into a dead-orthodox theologian with no heart for his
doctrine. Divines understand the struggle and work it to their advantage. Instead of
denying the fact of the struggle or running from it, let us embrace the challenge to gain
the victory over old Adam as he seek for the perfect love to obey Christ and to avoid
willful sin.
SUMMARY- What Paul lays out as to his struggle with his own sin nature in Romans 7:
1. Sin dwelt in him, even though he delighted in God's Law
2. His will was powerless against it. He could not defeat his indwelling sin or his
old sin nature. He was simply too weak to war against himself.
3. His condition was wretched and hopeless, from a natural viewpoint. The law
could offer no hope or relief, only condemnation, as his old nature was simply too strong
to attack in his own strength.
4. There only deliverance was through Christ, who had given him the victory over
himself and his old nature.
225
226
Romans Chapter 8
Up to this point in Romans, the Holy Spirit has been mentioned only once (5:5). In this
chapter, He is mentioned 19 times.
After the great doctrines of sanctification have been dealt with in chapters 5-7, Paul will
now summarize the doctrines of the Christian experience in chapter 8. The Christian’s
position and standing are now summarized after the great works of Christ on his behalf
have been expounded in chapters 5-7. We are now on the mountain peak of Romans,
as chapters 1-7 have all been building up to this chapter and summation.
“This chapter is, like the Garden of Eden, full of all manner of delights. Here you have all
necessary doctrines to feed upon and luxurious Truths of God with which to satisfy your
soul. One might well have been willing to be shut up as a prisoner in paradise and one
might well be content to be shut up to this one chapter and never to be allowed to
preach from any other part of God’s Word. If this were the case, one might find a
sermon in every line— no, more than that, whole volumes might be found in a single
sentence by anyone who was truly taught of God! I might say of this chapter, “All its
paths drop fatness.” It is, among the other chapters of the Bible, like Benjamin’s meal
which was five times as much as that of any of his brothers! We must not exalt one part
of God’s Word above another, yet, as “one star differs from another star in glory,” this
one seems to be a star of the first magnitude, full of the brightness of the Grace and
Truth of God! It is an altogether inexhaustible mine of spiritual wealth and I invite the
saints of God to dig in it and to dig in it again and again. They will find not only that it
has dust of gold, but also huge nuggets which they shall not be able to carry away by
reason of the weight of the treasure! I notice, in this chapter, and also in many other
parts of Paul’s writings (Charles Spurgeon, “Heirs of God”, Metropolitan Tabernacle
Pulpit, volume 51, sermon 2961).”
Romans 8 starts with no condemnation (8:1) and ends with no separation (8:38,39).
There are several contrasting “twins” in chapter 8:
1. The flesh and the Spirit through the chapter
2. Two laws in 8:2
3. Two minds, or two ways in 8:5-7
4. Two spirits in 8:15
***************************************************************************************************
62. No Condemnation in Christ 8:1
8:1 There is therefore nowa nob condemnationc-d-e-f to them which are in Christ
Jesus,g-h who walkpresent active participle not after the flesh, but after the Spirit-i-j-k-l
1a “now” Emphasize this present tense- now no condemnation, even while still in a
sinning body on earth- now no condemnation, not later in heaven. We, at this very
227
moment of time, are totally freed from any condemnation of the law or from our sins by
the work of Christ. This is not a future blessing but a present possession that all
believers enjoy right now.
1b “no” Emphatic in the Greek- this word occurs first in the sentence in the Greek. “Not
even one, single, condemnation”.
1c “no condemnation” Romans 8 begins with “no condemnation” and ends in “no
separation”. There once was condemnation against us while we were under the law
and in our sins, but Christ’s work on the cross has eliminated it as He took our
condemnation in His own body while on the tree. There was a two-fold condemnation
against us:
1. Based on Adam’s transgression- sinners by nature
2. Based on our own transgression- sinners by choice
The Tyndlae, Coverdale and Bishops Bible all use the stronger “damnation” No
condemnation equals no damnation.
1d Satan accuses the saints of sin (Job 1,2; Zechariah 3:1; Revelation 12:10) but he
cannot condemn us.
1e Christ condemns our sin but He does not condemn us. Our sins cannot be saved
but we can. When Christ saves us, He saves from our sin but not in our sins, nor does
He make any provision for us to continue in our sins or old life.
1f There is much tribulation in Christ but no condemnation (Thomas Robinson, Studies
in Romans, page 411).
1g “in Christ Jesus” First, a man must be born again in order to be "in Christ". Once a
man is in Christ, he then must walk not after the flesh but after the spirit to avoid
condemnation. While a Christian positionally would have no condemnation because of
his new birth, he could have a practical condemnation if he continues to live in a carnal
fashion after he has been born again. Consider a professing Christian who still drinks,
smokes, curses and buys pornography on a habitual basis. He might be saved but are
you going to say there is no condemnation toward him because of his carnality? He is
willingly living in sin with no immediate plans to repent. Is he living right? No. Is he
pleasing God? No. Is he growing in grace and the knowledge of the truth? No. Does
he risk the "sin unto death" of 1 John 5:16? He certainly does. Is he making his
salvation shipwreck? Yes. Does he stand the threat of suffering total loss at the bema?
Yes. The only way to have this double-justification is to be saved (positionally justified)
and then to walk in holiness (practically justified).
This freedom from condemnation is found only in Christ, not in a church, a
denomination, a theological system, by following a man or anything else. Nor is this
freedom from condemnation based on our own internal “holiness” (or morality), our
spirituality, our education or how well we think we keep the law. It is all bound up in
Christ, not in ourselves or in religious practices.
228
1h “in Christ” One of Paul’s favorite verses, used by him in all his epistles.
1i Who is free from the condemnation of sin and the law?
1. Them which are in Christ Jesus
2. Those who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit.
This supposes that if a man is not in Christ Jesus and does not walk in the Spirit, then
he remains under condemnation. It is obvious that a sinner, who is not in Christ Jesus,
is under condemnation, but what about this man who is walking in the flesh? Can a
Christian be truly saved and yet walk in the flesh? If he does, is he yet under
condemnation? Is this the same form of condemnation as the sinner endures? We
believe that a believer may, for a season, walk in the Spirit but will not be permitted by
the Heavenly Father to continue such a sin for long. God will either deal with that heart
with the intent of bringing him into a normal Christian walk, else He may turn him over to
the devil for the destruction of the flesh so the Spirit may be saved. Such a forsaking by
God to the power of Satan or the "sin onto death" of 1 John 5 is a unique form of
condemnation reserved unto Christians. It does not involve the loss of the soul but the
loss of rewards and honor at the bema.
1j The phrase “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” causes a lot of
trouble to those who do not major on personal and practical holiness. This phrase is
omitted in most critical text Bibles, including the Living Bible, New World Translation of
the Jehovah Witnesses, Today's English Version, New American Standard Version,
Revised Standard Version, Revised Version, the English Standard Version and is
questioned in the Amplified New Testament (where it is put in brackets), New King
James and New International Version (in the footnotes). It is not a gloss from 8:4 as
Ethelbert Bullinger thinks in his Companion Bible, nor do “all the texts omit” as his
marginal note claims (see below). It is not hard to guess why- someone doesn't want to
have to live holy! Most commentaries also attack the verse. Even Charles Spurgeon,
to his shame, took the bait (sermon #1917) as he was entranced and seduced by the
grossly flawed Revised Version of 1881 (the corrupt Westcott-Hort New Testament
which he took a liking to during the latter years of his ministry). Few commentators will
defend the integrity of the traditional text in this verse, as the King James and her
kindred translations have few friends among the mainline commentators, whether they
be Catholic, Protestant or Baptist. They are offended by the phrase so out it goes!
These six precious words have few friends who will defend them against the
Satanic onslaught. Most liberals, modernists and New Evangelicals are very worldly
and carnal and resent being told they must live a holy life (which includes the practice of
that hated doctrine of separation) in order to be fully free from condemnation. Just
because the phrase crosses your doctrinal system or aggravates your hatred of the
doctrine of holy living is no reason to remove even one word of Scripture. We have too
much respect for the doctrines of inspiration and preservation to imagine ourselves
wiser than the Holy Spirit who wanted this phrase included in the Scripture.
229
Look at the manuscript evidence concerning the first six of the last ten words: "Who
walk not after the flesh." In Nestle's Greek Text Apparatus, the listings against the
King James reading are:
1- Westcott and Hort reject the reading
2- Nestle gives no other evidence for taking these six words out of Romans 8:1. His
only evidence is because Westcott and Hort did, so he does! But what if Westcott and
Hort were wrong?
The manuscript evidence for the six words are:
1- Textus Receptus (traditional Received Text)
2. The following uncials: Alexandrinus, Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis, Codex
Athous Laurae
3. The following minuscules: 81, 629, 2127
4. The following Old Latin manuscripts: Demidovianus, Augiensis, Speculum,
Bodleianus, Harleianus-Londiniensis
5. The following versions: Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, Gothic, Armenian
6. The following Church Fathers: Victorinus, Ambrosiaster, Ephraem, Basil,
Chrysostom
Now to the last four words: but after the Spirit. The evidence against the King James
reading is:
1- Westcott and Hort rejected the reading
2- The Alexandrian family
3- The Western family
4- Seidelianus
The evidence for the King James reading is listed by Nestle as:
1- The Textus Receptus
2- The following uncials: Codex Sinaiticus [after at least three correctors had
tampered with the text], Codex "D" [also after at least three correctors had tampered
with the text] , "K" [Codex Cyprius] , "L" [Codex Regius] , "F" [Porphyrianus]
The Expositor's Greek Testament lists the following evidence against the King James
reading:
1- Sinaiticus [after one corrector, the first one to change the text]
2- "B" [Vaticanus 1209]
3- "C" [Codex Ephraemi]
4- "D" [the first corrector having probably taken it out]
5- "F" [Codex Boreelianus]
6- Minuscule number 47
7- The Egyptian and Ethiopic versions
8- Origen
9- Athanasius
10- And all critical editions [anti-Antiochian text manuscripts]
230
The evidence for the King James/Geneva reading [the last half of Romans 8:1], "Who
walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" is as follows:
1- Sinaiticus [it is against and it is for depending on which corrector messed with
the text]
2- Claromontanus [a corrector messed with the verse]
3- Codex Cyprius
4- Codex Porphyrianus
5. The following minuscules: 33, 88, 104, 181, 326, 330, 451, 614, 630, 1241,
1877, 1962, 1984, 1985, 2492, 2495
6- The majority of Byzantine manuscripts
7- The majority of lectionaries [thousands of them]
8- Ardmachanus
9- Sangermanensis [some doubt to the reading because of the bad condition of
this MS]
10- The Harclean Syriac
11- Theodoret
12- Pseuso-Oecumenius
13- Theophylact
14- Chrysostom
1k Yet the critical text versions leave the second appearance of this phrase in 8:4
alone, for some odd reason. If they attacked it in 8:1, then why did they leave it alone in
8:4? Nothing is gained by removing these words and we are on very safe ground to
retain them in our English text.
1l We notice the conflict between the flesh (the old nature) and the spirit (the new
nature). There is no fellowship between the two for they are polar opposites. Any
attempt to merge them or to reconcile them is doomed to failure. You are either in the
flesh or in the spirit.
****************************************************************************************************
63. The Law of the Spirit of Life 8:2
8:2a For the law of the Spirit of lifeb in Christ Jesus hath made mec freed-e-aorist from
the law of sin and death.
2a Two laws are mentioned here, the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ and the Law of
Sin and Death. What are these laws?
1. Law of the Spirit of Life would be bound up in salvation by faith and grace
apart from the works of the Law. Justification by faith alone. Conformity to this law
results in full and free justification.
2. Those who are not covered by the Law of the Spirit of Life are under the
authority of the Law of Sin and Death. If a man has not justification according to the
Law of the Spirit of Life, he has no justification at all and will die in his sins and will
231
experience the eternal second death in the Lake of Fire. Every man is under one (but
not both!) laws.
God operates in a very legal manner, according to law, order and design. He
has established laws in regard to justification. Justification can only be obtained
lawfully. Trying to earn justification is unlawful and illegal and does not work. If a man
wants to be justified, he must do it according to the Law of the Spirit of Life and accept
justification by faith.
We are all born under the domain and jurisdiction of the “law of sin and death”.
But there is a higher law from a Higher Lawgiver, the Law of the Spirit of Life. Just as
federal law is higher than state law, the Law of the Spirit of Life is higher than the Law of
Sin and Death. The issue is how do we transfer ourselves from the domain of one law
to the other? By changing citizenship! An American who becomes a Canadian citizen
is no longer subject to American law as he is no longer an American citizen. When we
become a citizen of heaven through the new birth, we become subject to the laws of our
new country and our new King and are no longer answerable to the laws of our old
country of this world and its god, Satan.
2b The Coverdale has this as “the Spirit that brings life”.
2c The ESV has “you” instead of “me” as in all the traditional versions.
2d “made me free” Nothing else could do this. The law, works, Jewish rituals, nothing
could set Paul (or anyone else) free from sin and death.
2e "Hath made me free" a man can be saved and know it. Paul knew that he had
been delivered from condemnation. Salvation is a matter which can be definitely felt by
those who possess it.
****************************************************************************************************
64. The Weakness of the Law 8:3,4
8:3 For what the law could not do,a in that it was weakimperfect through the flesh,
God sendingaorist active participle his own Sonb in the likeness of sinful flesh,c and for
sin, condemnedaorist sin in the flesh:d-e
3a “what the law could not do” The law could not bring justification not because it was
impotent to do so but because of the weakness of our flesh. The problem was not with
the law but was with us. There was simply no way we could fulfill the law in our sinful
flesh. Christ was able to because He had no sin. What the law could not do, Christ did
through His atonement work on the cross.
3b “God sending His own Son” In the incarnation through the virgin birth. God did not
send an archangel, for this task was so important, it could be entrusted to no one but
the very Son of God Himself. Besides, what does an angel know sin, corruption,
232
suffering? Angels are not men and so cannot die for man. It takes a man to redeem
man, so Christ became the Man Christ Jesus to pay for our redemption.
3c "The likeness of sinful flesh" has been a proof-text for Gnosticism in denying the
real humanity of Christ. They say He just appeared to be a material man but was really
all spirit. They simply translated the verse according to their own doctrine. Christ was
every bit a man as any other man. He looked exactly like a normal man, except for the
fact that there was no sin in that flesh. You'd never know it by simply looking at him for
there was nothing physically remarkable about Him. He looked like a sinner but under
that human exterior was the sinless Son of God.
We see an example of God using something that appeared to be the problem as
the solution. In Numbers 21, God used a brazen serpent, which resembled the literal
serpents that God had sent among the complaining Jews. The cure resembled the
problem. Here, Christ resembled sinful flesh although His flesh was not sinful. He was
fully human but only had the appearance of sinful flesh. His death then resembled the
problem, a man who resembled human flesh dying for men who had sinful flesh.
3d Christ "condemned sin in the flesh" on the cross. He had fulfilled the law in His
flesh and took its demands off of us through His substitutionary death for us. A man
was finally able to keep that law after 1500 years of failure. Christ had thus conquered
sin by His sinless life and broke its stranglehold upon the human race.
When sin strung Christ in death, it actually destroyed itself. Like a bee who dies
after losing his stinger, sin also dies when it lost its stinger after stinging Christ.
3e The Coverdale moves the last part of this verse to verse 4.
****************************************************************************************************
8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilledaorist subjunctive passive in us,a who
walkpresent active participle not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.b
4a “fulfilled in us” This act of Christ and resulting benefits is for those who now walk
not after the flesh but after the Spirit. Technically, backslidden and carnal believers also
have these benefits in a positional sense, but they do not enjoy them nor do they benefit
by them since they walk after the Spirit. It is like having a million dollars in the bank yet
eating in soup kitchens every day. Many Christians do not take advantage of the victory
and provisions given them by Christ. They are millionaires yet live like paupers. They
have the power made available to them to live like Christians instead of carnal ones that
they are.
4b “after the Spirit” This phrase is repeated from 8:1. The righteousness of the law in
producing holy living can only be fulfilled by those who walk in the Spirit and not by
those who walk in the flesh. Carnality does not produce righteousness and vice-versa.
The righteousness of Christ has enough trouble being fulfilled in those who live a Spiritfilled life. How then could it possibly be fulfilled by those who walk carnally?
233
****************************************************************************************************
65. Spiritually or Carnally Minded? 8:5-7
8:5a For they that arepresent active participle after the fleshb do mindpresent the things of the
flesh;c-d but they that are after the Spiritb the things of the Spirit.e
5a As Romans 7 was dominated by “I”, “me” and “my”, Romans 8 is dominated by the
Holy Spirit.
5b What you are determines what you do. What is in your heart also determines who
or what you will follow. If you are Spirit-filled, it will manifest itself in your life. A carnalhearted man will produce a carnal walk. A spiritually-minded man will produce a spiritual
walk with God. The root in the heart produces and determines the fruit of the actions
and attitudes. A carnal man cannot walk in the Spirit and a Spirit-filled man won’t.
5c “do mind the things of the flesh” The Geneva Bible is stronger in using “savor
the things of the flesh”, which is probably a better reading, since those in the flesh do
indeed love and indulge in the things of the flesh, just as those in the Spirit do indulge in
and love the things of the Spirit.
5d Five things that will never happen to the flesh:
1. Its nature cannot be changed
2. It cannot be reformed, only condemned and crucified
3. It can never be conquered or tamed, as it is too strong for human will
4. It cannot be improved
5. It cannot be reconciled to God
5e The Tyndale and Coverdale use “ghostly minded” for “spiritually minded” at the end
of the verse.
****************************************************************************************************
8:6 For to be carnally mindeda is death; but to be spiritually mindedb is life and
peace.c-d
6a “carnally minded” A mind of the flesh, fleshly-minded, a mind that is dominated by
the flesh instead of the Spirit.
Can a Christian be carnally minded? Unfortunately, it would appear so. If you
don't believe it, visit any church at random on Sunday morning and you'll see pew after
pew of backslidden believers. Living below your privileges produces hate, worry,
worldliness and similar sinful attitudes. A carnally-minded Christian is slowly killing
himself, having his spiritual life slowly sapped away until his mind is dead although
saved When this "Christian" hits the judgment seat, he'll be saved as though by fire.
He may be saved but what kind of salvation is this? What kind of a Christian life is this?
He is not enjoying his justification. But to be spiritually-minded results in just the
234
opposite- life and peace. Of course, he is not really a Christian although he may
profess salvation. A Christian is a disciple, a "Christ-one" and such a follower of Christ
would not live carnally. This carnally-minded Christian may be saved (which in itself is
debatable) but he has no claim to the title "Christian" until he starts living like one.
Of course, the primary application of the carnally-minded man would be that of
an unsaved man. He cares nothing for the things of this world and is on the fast track
toward the pit. He is not happy nor satisfied, regardless of what he may try to tell you.
Woe to the professing Christian who has this same mind! We must really wonder if a
man can be truly be born again and be carnally minded. If he were really born again
and understood what that involved, his love for Christ would be strong enough to deliver
him carnality and deliver him unto the normal Christian life of the spirit-filled walk.
6b “spiritually minded” Just the opposite- a mind dominated by the Holy Spirit. There
are only these two options- spiritually-minded and carnally-minded. There is no other
alternative. At any given time, you are one or the other. And you are one or the otheryou cannot be both minded at once, nor can you be 30% spiritual and 70% carnally at
any one time. You either are or you aren’t, either 100% of one mind or not at all.
The Coverdale used “ghostly” for “spiritual”.
6c The ESV is overly wordy and awkward here. It’s reading is very inferior to the
traditional translations.
6d “Flesh cares for flesh. The man who is all body cares only for the body. The man,
whose mind is under subjection to his body, minds “the things of the flesh.” Where the
Holy Ghost is Supreme where the spiritual world has become predominant over the
heart and life. There, men live for something nobler than the worldly man’s trinity, “What
shall we eat, and what shall we drink, and wherewithal shall we be clothed?” The carnal
life is only becoming to a beast, or a bird, or an insect. But when a man cares for his
immortal spirit, and lives for divine and spiritual things, he has attained to the life that is
life indeed (Charles Spurgeon).”
***************************************************************************************************
8:7 Because the carnal minda is enmityb against God:c for it is not subjectpresent
passive
to the law of God, neither indeed can bedc-present middle
7a The “carnal mind” is one that thinks only of the flesh, never the spirit. It dwells
only upon the appetites and lusts of the body and never takes any thought for the soul
or for the world to come. It also has no time to consider God or heavenly things, since it
is totally wrapped up in things of this earth alone.
7b “enmity” is an active opposition against something, a very lively hatred that results
in some form of action against the object hated.
7c The Geneva has a very odd rendering of “the wisdom of the flesh…” which none of
the other translations have.
235
7d A sinner will not submit to the authority of God in his life. God commands that man
to repent (Acts 17:30) but the sinner thinks nothing of it. Don't even bother speaking of
holiness, prayer or the Bible to such a one. But what of the carnal believer? He is as
disobedient for he refuses to confess and forsake his sin and to cease his backslidings
by returning to the Lord who bought him. As long as anyone's mind is fixed on carnality,
the law of God will not move him.
***************************************************************************************************
66. The Commendation of the Life of the Spirit 8:8
8:8 So then they that arepresent active participle in the flesha cannotpresent middle pleaseaorist
infinitive
God.b-c
8a “in the flesh” is a life lived in the world, under the domain of sin, apart from the
presence of God without regard for His Word. It is a life spent on self, to fulfill the lusts
of the flesh, without any consideration of the glory of God. It’s end is the lake of fire.
8b Sinners cannot please the Lord. Even when they go about to do their daily toils is a
displeasure to God (Proverbs 21:4). The sinner is under the constant judgment of God
until he repents. Even those religious things he will do only serve to anger God more.
The carnal Christian also displeases his Lord as he continues in his worldliness after
professing salvation. To please God, one must be both in Christ and in the Spirit.
Here is the master sin of our generation- carnality! The Church is carnal by
choice today. The Church believes that the only way to evangelize our current carnal
generation is to use carnal methods and means. They do not believe Biblical or spiritual
means can be used successfully to evangelize the lost, as if the Bible was no longer
relevant to our age. This explains the widespread use and popularity of Christian
Contemporary Music, Southern Gospel Music, modern Bible versions, the lowering of
standards and the “seeker sensitive movement”. Everything on Trinity Broadcasting
Network or Daystar of The Church Channel is geared to appeal to the flesh. They can
attract quite a crowd but it will be a carnal crowd since carnal “bait” was used to attract
them. You cannot attract spiritual people using carnal means. You cannot build a
spiritual church using carnal methods. These carnal churches and ministries cannot
please God because they are based on carnal methods and philosophies. Spiritual
churches and ministries may be much smaller and be much more humble in their public
appearance but they have the blessing of God and are able to please God because
they are in the Spirit.
8c Thomas Manton lists some reasons why the natural man cannot please God:
1. There is a defect in their state, they are not renewed and reconciled to God
by Christ, and therefore God may justly say; Malachi 1:10, 'I have no pleasure in you,
neither will I accept an offering at your hands.' They live in their sins, and therefore he
may justly abhor and reject all their services; they live in enmity to him, and in neglect of
his grace, and will not sue out their atonement
236
2. There is a defect in the root of these actions. They do not come from faith
working by love, which is the true principle of all obedience, Galatians 5:6. Without love
to God in Christ, we want the soul and life of every duty. Obedience is love breaking out
into its perfect act: 1 John 2:5, 'If we keep his word, herein is love perfected.'
3. There is a defect in the manner. They do not serve God with that sincerity,
reverence, seriousness, and willingness, which the work calleth for; they show love to
him with their lips, when their hearts are far from him, Matthew 15:8; there is an habitual
aversion, whilst they seem to show love to him. All their duties are but as flowers
strewed upon a dunghill.
4. There is a defect in the end. They do not regard God's glory in their most
commendable actions; they have either a natural aim, as when they are frightened into
a little religiousness of worship in their extremities: Hosea 7:14, 'They howl upon their
beds for corn and wine.' And then they are like ice in thawing weather, soft at top, and
hard at bottom. Or a carnal aim, out of bravery and vain glory, Matthew 8:2. Or a legal
aim, when they seem very devout, to quiet conscience, or to satisfy God for their sins,
by their external duties: Micah 6:6-8, 'Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow
myself before the high God? Shall I come before him with burnt-offerings, and calves of
a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousand rivers
of oil? Shall I give my first born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of
my soul?' But Solomon telleth us, Proverbs 21:27, 'The sacrifice of the wicked is an
abomination to the Lord,' much more when he bringeth it with an evil mind. At best it is
an abomination, much more when it is to buy an indulgence in some licentious practice,
by performing some duties requiring a sin-offering, not a thank-offering. But this cannot
please God, so as to obtain an eternal reward. God temporarily rewardeth moral
obedience, to keep up the government of the world; as Pagan Rome while it excelled in
virtue, God gave it a great empire and large dominion, And Ahab's going softly and
mourning, was recompensed with a suspension of temporal judgments : 1 Kings 21:29,
'Because he humbleth himself before me, I will not bring the evil in his days.' Again,
there is a difference between a wicked man going on in his wickedness, and a natural
man returning to God. When wicked men pray to God to prosper them in their
wickedness, as Balaam's altars were made; or to beg pardon while they go on in their
sins; so 'the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord,' Proverbs 15:8.
Namely, as they rest in external performances, and think by their prayers or some other
good duties to put by the great duties of faith, repentance, and new obedience, so these
prayers and good things are abominable; but in sinners returning to God, and using the
means, and expressing their desires of grace, though but with a natural fervency, and
with some common help of the Spirit, though the action doth not deserve acceptance
with God, and the person is not in such an estate that God hath made an express
promise to him that he will accept him, yet he hath to do with a good God, who doth not
refuse the cry of his creatures in their extremities, and it is a thousand to one, but he will
speed. The carnal man is to act these abilities, and common grace he hath, that God
may give more. (45 Sermons on Romans 8).”
****************************************************************************************************
237
67. The Impartation of the Life of the Spirit 8:9
8:9 But yea arepresent not in the flesh,b but in the Spirit,c if so be that the Spirit of
God dwellpresent in you. Now if any man havepresent not the Spirit of Christ, hea ispresent
none of his.d
9a Emphatic.
9b At least you shouldn’t be, if you are saved!
9c “in the Spirit” Christians are not in the flesh, or at least are not supposed to be.
You are one or the other- in the flesh or in the spirit. You cannot be in two locations at
the same time. We again cast a weary eye to the carnal, worldly professing Christian to
wonder if he is really born again. He may claim to be but he and God will hammer that
out. We must separate from such carnal professors as an open rebuke to their sinful
lifestyle and not tolerate their wet-blanket effect upon our churches. Either get right or
get out. If they refuse to conform to the image of Christ, let them find a New Evangelical
or Charismatic church where they will feel comfortable. These have no place in
Remnant churches. Our desire for purity is too strong to tolerate carnality.
9d The second part of this verse is an important one doctrinally in regards to the Spirit
of Christ, which must be another title for the Holy Spirit. The Spirit of God dwells in us
or else that man is not a Christian. Every Christian enjoys the indwelling of the Holy
Spirit, regardless of the spiritual maturity of that Christian. If a man does not have the
indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, he is not saved. Such truth refutes several
errors, especially in the Pentecostal and Charismatic camps. This refutes the
Charismatic teaching of a "second blessing"- being saved and then, later, receiving the
Holy Spirit (being baptized with the Holy Spirit). They teach that a man accepts Christ
but does not receive the Holy Spirit at conversion. He must earn his own "baptism of
the Holy Spirit" where he receives the Spirit. In such theological systems, it would be
possible to be saved but not have the Holy Spirit. But not according to Paul.
The confusion may be between a conversion experience and a crises
experience. Christians, at some point in their life, reach the level of spiritual puberty
when they must make an "adult" decision. For the years of their spiritual babyhood,
they must decide what they want to do with the rest of their Christian life. Will I serve
God or self? Will fulfilling the will of God in my life be all important or will I serve God
when I have time to? Will I follow after holiness or live my own way? Christians who
come out of this crises will develop into Spirit-filled Christians who are totally sold out.
Charismatics confuse this with receiving the Holy Spirit but such is not the case. For
these Christians, they simply have reached a point where the Holy Spirit has become
all-important in their life. They have gone from living a nominal Christian life to living a
normal one. They had the Holy Spirit before the crises, now He is simply more real in
their life and He controls them more fully than He did before. Even a few nonPentecostal Fundamentalists, like R. A. Torrey, D. L. Moody and John R Rice (who
followed such men almost to the letter in these issues) held to this "second blessing" of
238
being endued with the Holy Spirit at specific times for soul-winning power. They
confused the baptism of the Holy Spirit with power for soul winning, which of course it is
not. We do need Holy Spirit power to do any work for Christ but we do not receive any
re-baptisms whenever we witness to someone. They unsuccessfully attempted to mix
Bible truth with Pentecostal error and came out with this doctrine which fed the hyperevangelism errors promoted by Rice and those who followed his teachings and the
Sword of the Lord.
Every Christian (even the carnal ones) have received the baptism of the Holy
Spirit (1 Corinthians 12) at the moment of their salvation. There is no (nor is there a
need of) a "second baptism". We all receive the Holy Spirit at conversion, never to lose
Him. We may grieve Him or quench Him but we never lose Him. It is clear that in order
to be a Christian, you must have been baptized with the Holy Spirit at salvation and
have the Holy Spirit indwelling you. If the Holy Spirit is not in you then you are not
saved. To teach that one can be a Christian but has not been baptized with the Holy
Spirit or that the Holy Spirit does not indwell some Christians is a Pentecostal heresy
that we dealt with above. All Christians, who have been truly born again, have been
baptized by the Holy Spirit at salvation and all Christians have the Holy Spirit indwelling
them, although this certainly does not mean that all Christians are currently filled with
the Spirit or are living a Spirit-filled life. Such a spiritual state has nothing to do with
salvation but rather with sanctification.
***************************************************************************************************
68. The Foundation of the Life in the Spirit 8:10
8:10a And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin;b but the Spirit is life
because of righteousness.
10a If, or even since, Christ is in you (simply another way to describe the indwelling of
the Holy Spirit which was a result of the new birth experience), you are dead (Romans
6) to sin but alive unto Christ. You cannot have Christ in you and still be alive to sin.
Such a situation simply cannot be allowed. Either the old nature is alive or the new
nature is alive. One is dead and the other is alive. They both cannot be alive at the
same time. When one revives, the other must die for they cannot coexist.
10b The ESV does not offer a good rendering of the first part of verse 10. It is clunky
as is most of its handling of the verses in chapter 8 and offers no improvement at over
the traditional translations.
***************************************************************************************************
69. The Culmination of the Life in the Spirit 8:11
8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised upaorist active participle Jesusa from the dead.b
dwellpresent in you, he that raised upaorist active participle Christc from the dead shall also
quickenfuture your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwellethpresent active participle in you.d
239
11a “Jesus” “The only other place this use of the Lord’s single name alone in Romans
is in 3:26. The name ‘Jesus’ was Christ’s human name. Paul wants to call attention to
the fact that Jesus was once in the place of weakness, but God raised Him from the
dead by the Spirit (John Phillips, Exploring Romans, page 127).”
11b Practically speaking, how do we have the "Spirit of him that raised up Jesus"
dwell in us? This is done by mortifying the deeds of the body. This is voluntary action
that comes first by a desire for the Spirit to rule and not the body. This quickening of the
Spirit and our bodies is done only by the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus and not by
the Law.
11c The ESV has “Christ Jesus”.
11d Doctrinally and prophetically, this is not a reference to any quickening of our
current sinful bodies or of any type of sinless perfection in this life. The flesh is
hopelessly incurable and God makes no effort to restore it. He will help us to live a
victorious life over that flesh as long as we are dwelling in it but the flesh itself is under
condemnation. We need new glorified bodies made possible by the new birth which we
will receive at the first resurrection of the rapture. Notice the context with the
resurrection. Our mortal bodies (bodies of sin, death, corruption and weakness) shall
be quickened (made alive) at the rapture when we shall receive our new glorified
bodies.
****************************************************************************************************
70. The Obligation of the Life in the Spirit 8:12,13
8:12 Therefore, brethren, we arepresent debtors,a not to the flesh, to liveinfinitive after
the flesh.b-d
12a See also Romans 1:14.
12b Since we have been delivered from the demands of the law by the death of Christ,
our obligations to it have ended. We did die to the law when we accepted Christ and as
we have stated in the last chapter, there are no obligations on a dead man. Our debt
now is to the Spirit which delivered us from the power of the law and it is to the Spirit we
must live. The Spirit redeemed us and set us free from the law. What debt then do we
have to something we have been delivered from? What debt do we owe the old nature?
We already gave it years of hard service before our salvation, so it really can expect no
additional service from us.
12c “We are debtors to the past. Methinks I see the fathers at their midnight lamps, the
ancient saints in their much frequented closets, the thrice brave preachers in their
pulpits denouncing error and the faithful pastors reproving wrong. To such who have
preceded us we owe the purity of the Church and to them we are debtors. Methinks I
see the martyrs and confessors rising from their tombs—I mark their hands still stained
240
with blood and their bodies scarred with the wounds of persecution. They tell me that
they of old maintained the Truth and preached it in the midst of fire and sword—that
they bore death in defense of the cause of God that they might hand down His holy
Word inviolate to us! I look on them and see among their glorious ranks some whose
names are celebrated in every Christian land as the bold “lions of God,” the immovable
pillars of Truth. I see men of whom the world was not worthy, whose praise is in all the
Churches and who are now nearest the eternal throne. And as I look on them and they
on me, I turn to you all and say, “Brethren, we are debtors.”
We are debtors to the men who crossed the sea and laughed at the fury of the
storm, who risked the journeying and the weariness and all the various perils to which
they were exposed, by reason of robbers and false brethren. We are debtors to each
stake at Smithfield.
We are debtors to the sacred ashes of the thousands who have there followed
Jesus even unto death.
We are debtors to the headless bodies of those who were beheaded for Christ
Jesus.
We are debtors to those who dared the lions in the amphitheatre and fought with
wild beasts at Ephesus. We are debtors to the massacred thousands at the hands of
the bloody Church of Rome and the murdered myriads of her pagan predecessors. We
are debtors to them all.
Remember the bloody day of St. Bartholomew, the valleys of Piedmont and the
mountains of Switzerland. Let the sacred mounds of our fathers’ sepulchers speak to
us. Is not this Bible opened and read by us all the gift of their self-denying faithfulness?
Is not the free air we breathe the purchase of their death? Did not they, by bitter
suffering, achieve our liberty for us? And are we not debtors to them? Shall we not, in
some degree, repay the immense debt of our obligation by seeking to make the future
also debtors to us, that our descendants may look back and acknowledge that they owe
us thanks for preserving the Scriptures, for maintaining liberty, for glorifying God?
Brethren, we are debtors to the past (Charles Spurgeon, “The Christian- A Debtor” New
Park Street Pulpit, volume 2, sermon 96).”
We can add to this in saying that we are also debtors to the present age, as we
are charged to stand fast in the faith in a wicked and compromised day. Many around
us are falling away. Churches are softening up. They are changing their Bible versions
and their music. They are adjusting their standards and their presentations of the
gospel to accommodate a wicked and shallow age, in a vain attempt to lure in carnal
teenagers with pizza and rock concerts. The old warhorse of the Church, that
Authorized Version, is much despised today but we have a present duty to the men who
gave us such a book, the Wycliffes, the Tyndales, the translators of the Geneva Bible
and the 47 men who worked on our Authorized Version. What of the men who took that
same traditional Greek text and translated it into other languages? They also suffered
greatly. Do we not have a present duty to their memory? We must stand fast and
faithful in this day, to let this generation know that there is still a remnant in the earth
that has not gone over to contemporary Christianity and modern thought. After all, who
has suffered anything for the English “Standard” Version? What battles has the New
International Version won? These modern versions are simply too young to have
241
accomplished anything and are too weak and contemporary to have won any spiritual
battles.
We also have a duty to generations yet unborn. We must think of our children
and grandchildren, to leave them a godly and faithful legacy. May they bless us as we
blessed our fathers. We must show them how to stand in bad days so they will be able
to stand in theirs. We cannot expect future generations to be valiant if we have fainted
in the day of our adversity. We will sow, they will reap, but what sort of crop are we
planting for them to harvest?
12d The Coverdale pushes the last half of this verse to verse 13.
****************************************************************************************************
8:13 For if ye livepresent subjunctive after the flesh, ye shallpresent die:a-infinitive but if ye
through the Spirit do mortifyb-c-present the deeds of the body, ye shall live.d-e-future
middle
13a “live after the flesh ye shall die” This is one of the laws of the Bible- living after
sin and the flesh leads to spiritual death. Sinners live after the flesh as they have no
desire for the Spirit so they must die both physically and spiritually. What about a carnal
saint, a man like Lot? Does he die? If he does, it is not in the same manner as the
sinner. The saint will not see the second death. But if a professor who may be saved
lives after the flesh, he will develop no spiritual life within him. He is spiritually alive- but
barely, as on life support and comatose. The only way to take firm hold on spiritual life
and enjoy it is to put to death the deeds of the flesh through the Spirit.
The Tyndale and Coverdale are a bit stronger with “ye must die”.
13b "Mortify" means "put to death". It is up to us to put to death our own old natures.
There must be a desire and an effort to do so. It won't die on its own but will continue to
kick. God gives us the weapons we need for victory and mastery over the flesh but it is
up to us to use them. God will not kill it for us but we must go and possess the good
land of holiness ourselves, with full confidence of victory given us.
13c It is through the Spirit that we must mortify the deeds of the flesh for we cannot do
it in our own power. Many have tried and failed. Monks of the early church would fast
for extended periods and subject their bodies to the most horrible rites usually reserved
for torture chambers, in a desperate but sincere attempt to kill their sinful natures. It
was mistakenly believed that this would produce holiness. It didn't work because the
most important ingredient was missing- the Spirit! Mortification of the body must first be
done spiritually. Once the proper spiritual frame of mind has been achieved, mortifying
the physical will become that much easier.
13d The way to spiritual life is through death. We die to sin and the flesh. We die to
this world system and philosophy. By that death (Paul would liken it to crucifixion in
Galatians 2:20), it makes it possible for us to live unto God and unto righteousness. We
cannot live to both at the same time for it is impossible. If we are alive to sin, we will be
242
death to righteousness. If we are alive to God we will be dead to sin. The reason why
Christians have as much trouble with the flesh as they do is because we are still too
much alive unto the flesh and the flesh is not dead. It may very well be in the process of
dying but it won’t hurry up and die. Crucifixion is a slow, lingering, agonizing death.
Literally, it would take victims sometimes three days to die. Spiritually, it may take 50,
60, 70 years or more for the flesh to die, but even then, it will not fully and finally die
until the day of our physical death or rapture. But as the flesh dies, it should get
progressively weaker, which means the power of sin should
13e “Shall a dying body, then, be my master? Shall the appetite for eating and
drinking, or anything else that comes of the flesh, dominate my spirit? God forbid!
(Charles Spurgeon).”
****************************************************************************************************
71. The Sons of God 8:14-17
8:14 For as many as are ledpresent passive by the Spirit of God, theya arepresent the sons
of God.b-c-d-e-f
14a Emphatic.
14b Sonship of God involves the requirement to be led by the Spirit. God does not lead
the unsaved nor does He lead the carnal believer. No answers to prayer, no fellowship,
nothing of any spiritual value. But can a carnal believer be a son of God? If He is born
again, then he is a son of God and thus must be led by the Spirit. We again must
question the validity of a professing carnal believer's salvation. He cannot be a son of
God unless he is led by the Spirit. If a professor is so backslidden and carnal that the
Spirit is not leading him, can he rightly be called a son? A believer who is living carnally
is not glorifying the family name of his adoptive Father not is he acting as His son. Sons
are to reflect the image of their fathers in their speech and walk. The carnal man is
reflecting Satan more than the Father. Does he lose sonship? Not if he is truly born
again. If he should be saved, he is again living below his privileges and status and is
not glorifying his Father. The Lord would not allow such a situation to continue long.
14c We would conclude that the following of the Spirit is a habitual thing. The
condemnations associated with not following the Spirit must also be habititual. We are
talking about the Christian who occasionally backslides for we all do that in varying
lengths of time. We talk of a professor who never follows the Spirit and who always
lives according to the flesh. Look for the fruit! Any fruit at all, no matter how small? If a
man is born again, there will be some growth, even if it is small or difficult to find. The
professor will have no growth at all since he does not have the indwelling of the Holy
Spirit. But every true believer will produce some degree of fruit. If a person as power
as the third member of the Godhead took up residence in our hearts, how could there
not be any fruit produced at all?
243
14d God leads through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit but it is up to the believer to
follow. God leads- He does not drive. We follow like a blind man follows a guide or as
an obedient soldier follows a general. God leads us because we are His sheep and
sheep follow the Shepherd. Goats, or unsaved people, won't follow anyone but must be
driven. How then can a carnal man who must continually be whipped and driven to live
right claim to be a son of God? He is exhibiting none of those son-like and sheep-like
qualities. He does not love God else he would live for Him. He does not honor the
family name. He will not follow God. This man has no fruit nor testimony to claim the
name "Christian".
14e “sons of God” Also see the “children of God” in 8:16 and 17. If we are the
children of God through the new birth, then we should expect to carry some likeness of
our father, as children usually carry the likeness of their physical parents. This is
manifested in a gradual conformity to the image and likeness of Christ (8:29) and an
ever-deepening walk with God and a corresponding increase in our own personal
holiness and Christ-likeness.
14f The Coverdale pushes the last half of this verse to verse 15.
****************************************************************************************************
8:15 For ye have not receivedaorist the spirit of bondagea again to fear;b but ye have
receivedaorist the Spirit of adoption,c-d-e whereby we cry,present Abba,f Father.g
15a The ESV has “slavery” but we think the traditional rendering of “bondage” is better.
“Citing material confiscated and turned over to the police in Orange, California,
as part of an investigation into Satanic group crime, New Age Bible Versions documents
that Satanists mockingly call Christians ‘slaves’ of Christ (pp. 221-225). The word ‘slave’
has very negative connotative associations, ranging from its well-known historical
applications to its current debauched meaning among sodomites. Webster defines a
slave as, “A person held in bondage...One who has lost control of himself...a drudge...”
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language states that the words (e.g. slave,
slothful, slain, slack) convey a “downward movement...or position.” Becoming a servant
of Jesus Christ is certainly an upward move (The Language of the King James Bible, p.
68). The word slave was first suggested for use in the bible in 1890 by Westcott and
Hort’s Revised Version and American Standard Version Committee member, James
Strong. He buried his opinions about how words should be translated in his Strong’s
Concordance, in its A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament, hidden
in the back. Few realize he created this otherwise useful concordance for “one great
object,” which was to “index” the changes made to the “Authorized Version” [KJV] by the
“Revised Version” of Westcott and Hort, and the “American revisers only” (Strong’s
Concordance, General Preface, Directions and Explanations, pages not numbered). He
admits in item 4 of his “Plan of the Book” that the first Greek so-called ‘definition’ he
gives, is his own; in Strong’s Concordance, Preface to the Concise Dictionary of the
Words in the Hebrew Bible, Strong admits his Old Testament work is based on
Gesenius (a Bible critic) and his definitions are merely his own suggestions for
244
“correcting” the KJV’s so-called “wrong translation.” His lexical definitions were merely
his opinions about how words should be translated in his upcoming ASV, later published
in 1901. Some of his ideas were incorporated into this corrupt version; some were not.
The word ‘slave’ was not used, and rightly so. Strong denied the inspiration of the Bible.
The Preface of the ASV went so far as to state that the original “Hebrew text is probably
corrupt...” (p. vii)...The first time the word ‘slave’ was actually chained to a bible was in
1961 in the New World Translation of the Jehovah Witness sect. The Catholic New
American Bible fell prey to it in 1970. The NIV and NASB submitted to the yoke
immediately. The NKJV has a galley of “slaves,” including “slaves of God” (Rom. 6:22)
and “Christ’s slaves” (1 Cor. 7:22). The New Living Translation, Today’s New
International Version and the Holman Christian Standard Bible were the most recent to
sell their readers into slavery (Gail Riplinger, In Awe of Thy Word, pages 264-265).”
15b “spirit of bondage again to fear” When we were saved, we did not receive the
spirit of bondage unto fear. That is what we were delivered from, not to. The law gave
us this spirit of fear and bondage. We have received the spirit of sonship when we were
saved, being delivered from the spirit of bondage that we were under while lost. The
lost are under bondage- to sin. The saved are bondservants (1:1) but that is a
voluntary, happy form of servitude rendered by the Christian to God. Having received
this Spirit, we can now cry "Abba, Father", a very intimate term of affection ("Daddy!").
Slaves were never permitted to call their masters "Abba", only sons. Slaves used "Ab".
We've been legally adopted. We were born into Satan's family as a result of Satan's fall
yet have been taken into the family of God and given full privileges of sonship.
15c "Adoption" is Strong’s #5206 ‘uioyesia huiothesia; adoption as sons, that
relationship which God was pleased to establish between himself and the Israelites in
preference to all other nations, the nature and condition of the true disciples in Christ,
who by receiving the Spirit of God into their souls become sons of God, the blessed
state looked for in the future life after the visible return of Christ from heaven. Adoption
is related to regeneration yet distinguished from it. Regeneration is a birth, adoption is a
transfer into God's family. Regeneration is an act of power while adoption is an act of
love. Regeneration is an internal act, adoption is an external act.
Adoption itself is an interesting concept. It is a Greek and Roman practice for it
does not stem from the Jewish law, although it was practiced (Moses in Exodus 2:10,
Genubath in 1 Kings 11:20 and Esther). But each of these occasions occurred outside
of Israel. Paul, who moved in Greek and Roman circles, was more familiar with it than
Peter, James or John. Speaking in a secular sense, the motive and initiative of
adoption always lay with the adoptive father, who thus supplied his lack of natural
offspring and satisfied the desire to perpetuate his family. The process and conditions of
adoption varied with the different peoples. Among oriental nations it was extended to
slaves (as Moses) who thereby gained their freedom, but in Greece and Rome it was,
with rare exceptions, limited to citizens. In Greece a man might during his lifetime, or by
will to take effect after his death, adopt any male citizen into the privileges of his son,
but with the invariable condition that the adopted son accepted the legal obligations and
religious duties of a real son. In Rome the unique nature of parental authority by which a
245
son was held in his father's power, almost as a slave was owned by his master, gave a
particular character to the process of adoption. Roman adoption was the process by
which a person was transferred from his natural father's power into that of his adoptive
father, and it consisted in a fictitious sale of the son, and his surrender by the natural to
the adoptive father (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, page 58). The Hebrew
Law Codes made no mention of adoption. The Greek word does not occur in the LXX
and in fact, no term corresponding to the Greek word "huiothesia" exists in Hebrew
(Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, page 61).
15d There are differences between spiritual adoption and civil adoption, of which we
are more familiar with:
1. We never adopt our own children but God adopts no one but His own children.
2. There are usually some good qualities and characteristics in the adopted child,
but not in those whom God adopted.
3. Civil adoption cannot give the child the same nature as his new father but
spiritual adoption does.
4. Civil adoption can be voided in some situations but not spiritual adoption
(eternal security!).
What are the comparisons between civil and spiritual adoption?
1. The Father starts both processes.
2. Both adoptions provide an inheritance to a child who before has none.
3. Both adoptions provide a change of name.
15e Summary of adoption:
1. Is through Christ- Galatians 4:5; Ephesians 1:5
2. Saints predestinated to- Ephesians 1:5
3. Saints receive the spirit of- Romans 8:15
4. A privilege- John 1:12; 1 John 3:1
5. Waiting for- Romans 8:23
6. Entitles to an inheritance- Romans 8:17; Galatians 3:29; 4:7; Ephesians 3:6
15f "Abba" Strong’s #5 Abba Abba, a Syro-Chaldaic word for "Father" which was also
used by the Greeks. It is a very personal and intimate word, similar to our "Papa" or
"Daddy". Slaves were not permitted to use the term, only sons. Who is permitted to
refer to the High King of Eternity so? The lost? No. The "Universal Fatherhood of
God" is a liberal pipe dream. No heathen has this sort of relation with God. But His
adopted children are given the authority and position so that they may refer to the Lord
thus. The Lord bids us to use this term in order to cultivate that deep, close and
intimate relationship with Him which He desires. When “abba” is used in the New
Testament, it is given as “Abba, father”, the “father” being supplied as an interpretation,
another example of how the Scripture interprets itself. Slaves were not permitted to use
this word, only sons.
246
15g “I have heard critics say, sometimes, of our prayers, “How familiar that man is with
God.” And one adds, “I do not like such boldness.” No, you slaves! Of course you
cannot speak with God as a child can! And it would not be right that you should! It befits
you to fear, crouch and, like miserable sinners, to keep yourselves a long way off from
God. Distance is the slave’s place—only the child may draw near! But if you are
children, then you may say, “Lord, You have had mercy upon me, miserable sinner as I
was, and You have cleansed me, and I am Yours. Therefore deal with me according to
the riches of Your Grace. My soul delights herself in You, for You are my God and my
exceeding joy.” Who but a true-born child of God can understand those Words of God—
“Delight yourself, also, in the Lord, and He will give you the desires of yours heart”?
“I do not know any more delightful expression towards God than to say to Him,
“Abba, Father.” It is as much as to say—“My heart knows that You are my Father. I am
as sure of it as I am sure I am the child of my earthly father! And I am more sure that
You would deal more tenderly with me than that my earthly father would.” Paul hints at
this when he reminds us that our fathers, verily, chastened us after their own pleasure,
but the Lord always chastens us for our profit. The heavenly Father’s heart is never
angry so as to smite in wrath, but in pity, gentleness and tenderness He afflicts His sons
and daughters. “You in faithfulness have afflicted me.” See what a blessed state this is
to be brought into, to be made children of God, and then in our prayers to be praying,
not like serfs and servants, but as children who cry, “Abba, Father”!... And this praying
of the true Believer who has the Spirit of adoption is very earnest praying, for it takes
the form of crying. He does not say, “Abba, Father.” Anybody can say those words. But
he cries, “Abba, Father.” Nobody can cry, “Abba, Father,” but by the Holy Spirit. When
those two words, “Abba, Father,” are set to the music of a child’s cry, there is more
power in them than in all the orations of Demosthenes and Cicero! They are such
heavenly sounds as only the twice-born, the true aristocracy of God, can utter, “Abba,
Father.” They even move the heart of the Eternal! (Charles Spurgeon, “The Spirit of
Bondage of Adoption” Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, sermon 1759).
****************************************************************************************************
8:16 The Spirit itselfa-b beareth witnesspresent with our spirit,c that we arepresent the
children of God:d
16a "The Spirit Itself" does not destroy the personality of the Holy Spirit by calling Him
"it" but is simply a literal rendering of the neuter Greek word here. Enemies of the
Trinity and the personality of the Spirit jump at this and declare that since the Spirit is
referred to as "it", then He is not a person. Well, what about the dozens of other
passages where the Spirit is referred to as "he"? Why do they ignore those verses?
We often call unborn and newly-born babies "it", don't we? Yet that is not an attack
against it's personality, is it? Since Paul is talking about the work of the Holy Spirit and
not the personality of the Holy Spirit in this verse, there is nothing wrong with using the
neuter pronoun here.
None of the pre-King James translations use a pronoun to describe the Spirit as
the King James does. The ESV violates the Greek texts by using “himself” although the
pronoun in neuter in the Greek. That is another case of interpreting and not translating.
247
16b Below is a very excellent article by Will Kinney on the supposed “mistranslation” of
“the Spirit itself”:
“The Spirit ITSELF beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of
God.” Is referring to the third person of the of the blessed Trinity, as “itself” a major error
in the King James Bible, which borders on blasphemy?
Doug Kutilek is a well known critic of the KJB. He has both printed, and posted
an article on the internet, which harshly criticizes this “supposed” error in the King
James Bible. Mr. Kutilek states: “Any honest evaluation of the King James Version
leads to the conclusion that it has numerous defects as a translation, some major, most
minor. But of these defects, among the most serious, quite probably the worst of the lot,
is its occasional use of the English pronoun “it” to refer to the Holy Spirit.” He continues,
“I will plainly state my opinion on the matter: I think that here the KJV comes
dangerously close to blasphemy, if it does not in fact actually wander into it.” He closes
his article with these words. “Those who imagine that the KJV. . . is faultless and errorfree are compelled to address the matter.”
The purpose of this article is to “address the matter”. I believe Mr. Kutilek’s
objections to the use of “it” or “itself” in referring to the Holy Ghost are both hypocritical
and ignorant. Hypocritical because there are many versions, including the modern ones,
that use “itself” in either the very same verses or in the very same manner; and ignorant
because he doesn't know the English language very well.
First, see how the Random House Webster’s College Dictionary of 1999 defines
the use of the words “it” and “itself”. The second definition given for “itself” is: “used to
represent a PERSON or animal understood, previously mentioned, about to be
mentioned, or present in the immediate context - Who is it? It is John. . . Did you see
the baby? Yes, isn’t it cute. . . the cat likes to sun itself in the window.”
The Websters 1967 Collegiate Dictionary defines “it”, as “a PERSON or animal
whose gender is unknown OR DISREGARDED.” The Father and the Son are clearly
masculine, but the Spirit is sometimes referred to as masculine and sometimes as
neuter, not because He is neuter, but rather because the gender is disregarded or not
taken into account in that particular context.
The four verses in the KJB that Mr. Kutilek criticizes are: John 1:32, Romans
8:16, Romans 8:26, and I Peter 1:11. We will examine these verses with other
translations and then look at some examples in the new versions.
The first verse is John 1:32. “And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit
descending like a dove, and IT abode upon him.” Other Bible versions that agree with
the KJB in their use of “it” are Tyndale , the Geneva Bible of 1599 and 1602, Bishops
Bible 1568, Daniel Mace's N.T. 1729, Wesley's translation 1755, Darby, Revised
Version of 1881, American Standard Version of 1901, the Douay of 1950, Henry Alford’s
translation, Young’s 'literal', the 21st Century KJV of 1994, William’s New Testament
1937, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac 1933, Daniel Webster’s of 1833, the 20th
Century New Testament, Weymouth’s translation, Goodspeed’s American translation
1943, the 1998 Third Millenium Bible, the Revised Standard Version of 1952, the New
American Bible 1970, the NRSV of 1989, and the 2001 English Standard Version.
248
The second verse is Romans 8:16. “The Spirit ITSELF beareth witness with our
spirit, that we are the children of God.” Versions that agree with the KJB are the 21st
Century KJV, Alford’s, Bishop’s Bible, Darby, Webster’s, Rotherham's Emphasized
Bible of 1902, Goodspeed 1943, the Third Millenium bible of 1998 and the NRSV of
1989.
The third verse is Romans 8:26. “But the Spirit ITSELF maketh intercession for
us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” Again the 21st Century KJV, Alford’s
translation, the Bishop’s Bible 1568, Daniel Mace's N.T 1729, Wesley's 1755
translation, Coverdale 1535, Darby, Webster’s 1833, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible
1902, Goodspeed 1943, the Third Millenium Bible, and the Geneva Bible of 1599 and
1602 agree with the KJB.
The fourth verse is 1 Peter 1:11. “Searching what, or what manner of time the
Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when IT testified beforehand the sufferings
of Christ, and the glory that should follow.” Versions that agree with the use of “it” here
are Alfords, the Revised Version of 1881, the American Standard Version of 1901,
Webster’s, the Berkeley Version, Basic Bible in English 1960, the 1989 Revised English
Version, and the NRSV of 1989.
So we see that many Bible versions which both predate and follow after the King
James Holy Bible have used “it” and “itself” to refer to the Spirit of God. This is perfectly
acceptable English, and a very accurate translation. Those who criticize the King James
Bible for doing this only show their own ignorance of the English language. They also
demonstrate their own blind pride that places their own minds and defective
understanding above that of numerous other bible translators throughout the centuries
who had far more understanding and translational skills than they will ever possess.
The NASB and NIV have two interesting, parallel verses in the New Testament. Both
Matthew 12:45 and Luke 11:26 speak of a “spirit that takes along with IT seven other
spirits more wicked than ITSELF”.
Here is a case of a spiritual entity that can see, hear, speak, and has a
personality, yet the gender is disregarded in the NAS and NIV, and is referred to as
“itself”. This spirit was not an inanimate object, but rather a spiritual being with a distinct
personality.
In Luke 8:29, the same thing occurs in the KJB, NKJV, NIV, and NASB. “For he
had commanded the unclean SPIRIT to come out of the man. For oftentimes IT had
caught him.” Here again is a spirit that talks, reasons, hears, and knows that Jesus is
the Son of God and that torment awaits him. This is clearly a personality and yet all the
above mentioned versions refer to him as an “it”. The gender is disregarded, and this is
perfectly acceptable English.
Another instance of the Lord Jesus Christ using the little word “IT” to refer to
himself is found in the NASB, NIV, and NKJV in Luke 24:39 where He says: “Behold my
hands and my feet, that IT is I myself: handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and
bones, as ye see me have.”
Again in Revelation 12:4, a multitude of Bible versions, including the NKJV, NIV,
and the brand new English Standard Version of 2001, all refer to the child Jesus as IT.
“And the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour
her child as soon as IT was born.”
249
All of the modern versions use “itself” when referring to both animals and groups
of people. The NKJV has the donkey itself in Hosea 8:9, the goat itself in Lev. 16:22;
Israel itself in Judges 7:2. Numbers 23:9 speaks of “a people dwelling alone, not
reckoning itself among the nations”, and Zechariah 12:12, “the family of the house of
David by itself.”
All Bible versions at times speak of Jesus Christ as being a thing or something
neuter. In Matthew 1:20, the angel of the Lord says to Joseph: “fear not to take unto
thee Mary thy wife: for THAT WHICH is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” Notice
the angel does not say “he”, but “that which”: it is neuter both in Greek and in English. In
Luke 1:35, the angel says to Mary, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the
power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also THAT HOLY THING which
shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” That holy thing is neuter, yet we all
know that Jesus Christ is a person, in fact, God manifest in the flesh.
The book of 1 John opens with a reference to Jesus Christ, yet it refers to Him as
a thing. “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen
with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of
life.” Yet Christ is not a thing, but a person. In I John 5:4 we are told: “WHATSOEVER is
born of God overcometh the world.” This is a neuter. Are we to assume that everyone
who is born of God is a thing?
Mr. Kutilek’s objections to these four verses in the King James Bible are totally
unfounded. I have found that without exception, every person who takes it upon himself
to criticize something found within the pages of the King James Bible is himself a Bible
Agnostic. Not one of them can or ever will tell you where you can find the complete,
inspired and inerrant words of God in Book form in any language on the face of this
earth. Why? Because they simply do not believe that such a thing exists nor ever did
exist.
They profess to believe selected portions of their mutliple choice bible versions,
but doubt, question, criticize and would change numerous others found in ALL versions
out there. They are Bible Agnostics. God’s ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are
not our thoughts. He has revealed Himself to us in His inspired words, and I along with
thousands of other Christians believe He has faithfully kept them for us today in the
English language of the King James Bible.
(http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/rom8.html)”
16c Notice the double witness of our divine sonship- the witness of the Holy Spirit and
the witness of our own spirits. Two witnesses were required to establish a thing in a
court of law so God has given us such a double witness.
16d How can we know if we are the children of God? By the indwelling witness by the
Holy Spirit to our Spirit. It's not necessarily by feeling but by fact and faith. Too many
people rely upon emotion or experience as their basis for salvation. "I feel saved". "I
remember that great experience when I got saved" and so on. Unless your final
assurance rests upon the Scripture and is witnessed to you by the Spirit of God, you will
never have a firm, bedrock assurance of salvation. And you cannot fully enjoy and use
something until you have a firm grasp on it and fully possess it!
250
****************************************************************************************************
8:17 And if children, then heirs;a heirs of God, and joint-heirsb with Christ;c-d if so
be that we sufferpresent with him, that we may be also glorified together.e-aorist
subjunctive passive
17a Seeing we are children of God, we are also joint-heirs along with the Son of God.
“Heir” presupposed an inheritance. As Jesus has an inheritance (a kingdom- the
millennium), so do we, seeing we are in the same family and have the same Father.
This sonship, adoption and inheritance are more facts that the Spirit witnesses to us
about. Our “heirship” involves all that God has that also becomes ours. He owns the
cattle on a thousand hills (as well as the hills!). That is also ours. No good thing will He
withhold from us, His children. After all, He gave us the most precious possession He
had in His Son, so He then will not deny us all things.
17b “joint heirs” The Geneva Bible uses “annexed” which supposed a more organic,
physical union with Christ.
17c “In the golden age of Rome, if a man were tempted to dishonesty, he would stand
upright, look the tempter in the face and say to him, “I am a Roman.” He thought that a
sufficient reason why he should neither lie nor cheat. It ought to be ten times more than
sufficient answer to every temptation, for a man to be able to say, “I am a son of God.
Shall such a man as I yield to sin?”
“I have been astonished in looking though old Roman history at the wonderful
prodigies of integrity and valor which were produced by idolatry, or rather, which were
produced by patriotism and that principle which ruled the Romans, namely, love of
fame. And I say it this morning—it is a shameful thing that ever idolatry should be able
to breed better men than some who profess Christianity. And I think I may stand firmly
while I argue here, that if a Roman, a worshipper of Jupiter or Saturn, became great or
glorious, a Son of God ought to be nobler by far.
You have heard of Regulus the Roman general. He was taken prisoner by
Carthaginians, who anxiously wished for peace. They told him to go home to Rome
and see if he could not make peace. But his reply was, “No, I trust they will always be at
war with you, for Carthage must be destroyed if Rome is to prosper.” They compelled
him, however, to go, exacting from him this promise—that if the Romans did not make
peace he would come back and if he came back they would put him to death in the
most horrid manner that ever cruelty could invent. Regulus returns to Rome. He stands
up in the senate and bids them never to make peace in Carthage. He then tells them
that he is going back to Carthage and, of course, they tell him that he need not keep
faith with an enemy. I imagine that he said, “I promised to go back and though it is to
pangs indescribable, I will return.” His wife clings to his shoulder, his children seek to
persuade him. They attend him to the waters’ edge. He sails for Carthage—his death
was too horrible to be described. Never martyr suffered more for Christ than that man
suffered for his word’s sake. And shall a Christian man break his promise? Shall a son
of God be less true than a Roman or a heathen? Shall it be, I say, that integrity shall be
251
found in heathen lands and not be found here? No. May you be holy, harmless, sons of
God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation. (Charles
Spurgeon, “The Sons of God” New Park Street Pulpit, volume 6, sermon 339).”
17d We are all equal heirs with Christ, regardless of when we were saved, how long we
were saved, what our part in the Body of Christ may be or what our calling within the
Body of Christ is. We are all brethren, equal one to another and we should never be
trying to lord it over another brother. There are to be no “big names” and “big shots”
within the Body.
17e “glorified together:
1. Conformiry; we shall in some measure be like him in glory: see John 17:22;
Phillipians 3:21.
2. Concomitancy; we shall be present with him in glory, John 17:24;
1Thessalonians 4:17.
3. Conveyance; our glory will be from him; his glory will reflect on us, and we
shall shine in his beams. (Matthew Poole, Commentary on the Whole Bible).”
****************************************************************************************************
72. The Sufferings and the Glory 8:18
8:18a For I reckonb-present middle that the sufferings of this present time are not
worthy to be compared with the glory which shallpresent active participle be revealed in
us.c-d
18a Verses 18-25 are the highest peak in this highpoint chapter of the book of Romans.
18b The ESV has the weakest reading here, with “I consider”. The other translations
either “count”, “reckon” or are “certainly persuaded”.
18c I think Paul knew a little something about the sufferings of this life as few Christians
suffered for the gospel's sake as he did. Yet he confidently affirms these sufferings are
not worthy to be mentioned along side the glory that will result from them. It will indeed
be worth it all to suffer with Christ so that we may partake in his inheritance. Paul sat
down, got his ledger out, and did some reckoning. He put the sufferings of this life in
one column and the glory that shall be revealed in us in another column and added
them up, then compared the results. The glory tally was greater than the suffering tally!
This sort of suffering has a benefit to it- one of fellowship and camaraderie with others
who have endured the same things. Paul talks about the fellowship of Christ's
sufferings in Philippians 3:10. Get a few
Marines together and before long they will start swapping stories about the horrors of
boot camp and how they survived. Christians who have served and suffered should
have a much stronger and deeper bond than any secular sufferings may bring.
252
“Reckon” has the idea that Paul sat down at a ledger, much as a bookkeeper
would, and began to add up his accounts. In one column, he listed all the sufferings he
had experienced in his life and service for Christ. In the other column, he tallied all the
glories and blessings that he had already received in his years as a Christian and the
glories that God had promised him in the next life. Then Paul added up both columns.
They did not match. The sufferings column came up far short of the blessings column.
Paul would then conclude that the blessings would far outnumber the sufferings, and it
was worth enduring those sufferings in order to gain the blessings!
18d Once you get to heaven, receive your glorified body, see your heavenly mansion
and see Jesus face to face, your earthly sufferings, no matter how severe, will be
forgotten. What you suffered for Christ on earth will indeed be worth it all when you see
the spiritual fruits of that godly sufferings.
****************************************************************************************************
73. The Hope of the Creature 8:19-22
8:19 For the earnest expectationa of the creature waitethpresent middle for the
manifestation of the sons of God.b-c
19a This has the idea of an anxious looking with an outstretched head and eyes wide
open.
19b “manifestation of the sons of God” This probably won’t happen until the
Millennium, or after. Right now, we are rather hidden, unpromoted and unglorified. But
in the Millennium, the Lord will put the Redeemed on full display and in all their glory
before all creation. Those believers whom the world hated and had no use for during
the days of human dispensations will be glorified by God Himself before their enemies
in vindication of their faith and testimony.
19c “The world knows nothing of this astonishing verse. All the saints should always
have it in remembrance! Man's philosophy and science, taught in their schools,
continually prate of "evolution" and "progress" in the present creation. And they go back
in pure imagination millions of years and forward millions of years, telling you
confidently how things came to be, and when, and what they will come to be; but they
know nothing. Here God tells us unto what creation is coming--for what it is waiting:
"earnestly." Whether inanimate things on earth (for even the rocks and hills shall sing
for joy shortly!) or whether the moving creatures on earth or sea; or whether, may we
say, the hosts on high--all are waiting in expectation for that "unveiling of the sons of
God." For the word here translated "revealing" is apokalupsis, a removal of a covering,-as when some wonderful statue has been completed and a veil thrown over it, people
assemble for the "unveiling" of this work of art. It will be as when sky rockets are sent up
on a festival night: rockets which, covered with brown paper, seem quite common and
unattractive, but up they are sent into the air and then they are revealed in all colors of
beauty, and the multitude waiting below shout in admiration. Now the saints are
253
wrapped up in the common brown paper of flesh, looking outwardly like other folks. But
the whole creation is waiting for their unveiling at Christ's coming, for they are
connected with Christ, one with Him, and are to be glorified with Him at His coming
(William Newell, Romans Verse-by-Verse).”
****************************************************************************************************
8:20 For the creature was made subjectaorist passive to vanity,a-b not willingly,present active
participle
but by reason of him who hath subjectedaorist active participle the same in hope,
20a You can thank Adam and his sin as the Federal Head of the Race for the
weakness and vanity we suffer from. Eve was not to blame. Her sin affected no one
but her. But in “Adam’s fall, we sinned all.”
20b “vanity” It has the idea of “disappointing misery”.
****************************************************************************************************
8:21 Because the creature itselfa also shall be deliveredfuture passive from the
bondage of corruption into the glorious libertyb-c-d of the children of God.
21a None of the pre-King James translations use a pronoun here. The King James
and ESV both use “itself”. We see the inconsistency of the ESV by using “himself” in
8:16 but “itself” here. The ESV also has “creation” instead of “creature” here.
21b This is still future. We are saved now but we will not come into our full and
complete salvation until after death or rapture (probably the Millennium or after), when
we will be finally delivered from the power, penalty and presence of sin.
21c What is this “liberty”? Liberty from sin, the power of sin, the presence of sin, the
practice of sin, the physical limitations of this human body, the spiritual and mental
limitations of this human body and all that this entails, and the liberty to finally be able to
live for God, to serve God and to love God as we would desire to do, and in such a way
that He is worthy to be loved and served.
All children of God should enjoy this liberty for it was provided to us by Christ by
virtue of His work on the cross. It is part of the divine depostium granted to every
believer at salvation. Yet far too many believers live below their spiritual privileges and
still live in bondage to their master sins, to the remaining carnality in their hearts and to
the overall influence of this fallen and corrupt world system.
21d The ESV has “freedom of the glory” instead of the “glorious liberty”, thus
downplaying this spiritual liberty that we have.
***************************************************************************************************
8:22 For we knowpresent that the whole creationa groanethb-c-d-present and travaileth in
pain,present together until now.e
254
22a This time, the KJV and the ESV have “creation” while the other translations use
“creature”.
22b Verse 22 is the first of three groanings here in Romans 8:
1. The groaning of creation because of the curse of Genesis 3. The fall of Adam
and the accumulated untold numbers of sins committed by his children cause all of
God’s creation to groan in a most uncomfortable manner, for it certainly is greatly
affected by these sins.
2. The groaning of the Christian because of his sin as he awaits his glorified
body (8:23). We also groan in unison with a groaning creation, and we shall not at
present get rid of our aches, and pains, and sicknesses altogether until we receive our
glorified bodies. This creation will receive a “glorified body” after it has been renovated
by fire (2 Peter 3:10) when it shall groan no more, just as we will groan no more after we
receive our new bodies. Fortuantely, we will receive ours sooner (at the rapture) than
the creation will so we do not have as long to wait!
3. The groaning of the Spirit as He helps us in prayer (8:26).
22c The Creation Groans 8:22
The Christian Groans 8:23
The Comforter Groans 8:26
22d This groaning is manifested in many forms by nature, through storms, floods,
droughts, etc. Every rotten log, dead carcass of an animal, destroyed bird’s nest or
forest ravished by a fire is testimony to the damage that man’s sin has done to this
planet. The creation does know that deliverance from these killing effects of sin is
coming, but, like man, it does not know how much longer a wait we have until the
regeneration of all things and the final removal of sin from creation. “We live in a world
that is under a curse, — a world that was made subject to bondage through human sin.
What means this cold? What mean these fogs? What mean the general mourning and
sighing of the air all through the winter? What mean the disturbances, and convulsions,
and catastrophes that we hear about on all hands? It is the creation groaning, travailing,
waiting, — waiting till there shall be a new heaven and a new earth, because the former
things shall have passed away (Charles Spurgeon).”
22e All creation is awaiting the removal of the curse (which will take place in the
Millennium) and the manifestation of the true sons of God. All creation (including we
who are redeemed) are waiting for this whole mess to be over and for the new heavenly
order to be implemented. As we wait for that eventual and ultimate day of redemption,
all creation (as well as us) groan under the burden of our circumstances. Creation
groans under the curse it was put under in Genesis 3 with earthquakes, volcanic
eruptions, storms and drought. The redeemed likewise groan under the burden of our
daily and constant struggles against sin and self. How much longer must we wait?
When will we be redeemed and delivered from these oppressions?
255
74. Waiting for the Adoption 8:23
8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which havepresent active participle the
firstfruits of the Spirit, even wea ourselves groan-present within ourselves,b
waitingpresent middle/passive participle for the adoption, to wit,c the redemptiond of our
body.e
23a Emphatic.
23b “groan” And what Christian hasn’t groaned in himself over his sins, corruptions,
carnalities and failures? How many of us have groaned “O Lord, how long, until I be
delivered from the body of this death? How long until I be delivered from the power of
my sins once and for all?” If you haven’t ever groaned like this, then are you even truly
saved?
23c “to wit” an archaic legal term, meaning “namely”, used to define that which
precedes it by that which follows it.. Sometimes it is spelled “to-wit,” or “towit.” “’Wit’ is
from the Old English witan, ‘to know’. None of our modern versions contain any form of
these words. The word wit is used in the AV three times as an infinitive meaning to
know. Wit also appears seventeen times in the expression ‘to wit’ that means indeed,
that is to say, namely, or that is (Laurence Vance, Archaic Words and the Authorized
Version, page 381).”
23d The Redeemed wait for the redemption of their sinful bodies and for the day when
they will receive their glorified bodies at the first resurrection. Nature awaits the removal
of the curse. We await our full redemption. Now we are only 2/3 redeemed: spirit and
soul are redeemed, but not the body. When our bodies are quickened into the glorified
body like unto our Savior at the rapture, then we will finally experience our full
redemption from sin as we will never sin again. That is our “blessed hope” of Titus 2:13.
23e “redemption” Some of the versions (Tyndale, Coverdale and Bishops) use
“deliverance” for this word. But we like “redemption” better as it gives the idea of some
sort of payment being involved for this deliverance. That payment was, of course, the
blood of Christ.
***************************************************************************************************
75. Saved by Hope 8:24,25
8:24 For we are savedaorist passive by hope:a-b but hope that is seenpresent middle/passive
is not hope: for what a man seeth,present why doth he yet hopepresent for?c
participle
24a “saved by hope” This is our hope and it keeps us going from day to day. When
we get tired, we think of our full redemption. When we get weary or discouraged, our
thoughts turn to this blessed hope. We are saved, or delivered, by hope- that blessed
256
hope that is the end result of our faith- total redemption. It is the living reality of this
hope that gives us our patience to keep on living, suffering, forbearing and groaning
under the weight of our problems. Only the blessed hope could inspire us to put up with
that! It makes you wonder how the sinner, who only has the hope of fire and brimstone,
can keep going on as he does day by day? What is his hope? His expectation? He
has none. It is a wonder that more sinners don't commit suicide every day if they really
understood their hopeless plight outside of Christ. Not so with the redeemed!
The Coverdale really confuses the verse with “For we are saued i dede, howbeit i
hope”. The ESV weakens it as not rendering that we are “saved by hope” but “ For in
this hope we were saved.” How is that clearer than saying that we are saved by hope?
24b But we are saved by hope? I thought we were saved by faith and by grace? Is all
a sinner has to say is "I hope I'm saved!" and be saved? No. This is not a plan of
salvation and hope cannot deliver the sinner from sin but it can believer the saint from
despair. Hope has nothing to do with our justification but it has everything to do with our
motivation. Faith saves the sinner- hope saves the believer. Faith unites us in Christhope sustains us in His service. Faith trusts for salvation- hope waits for it. Faith looks
to the Author of our salvation- hope to the salvation itself. Faith quiets the soul- hope
animates it.
And this is certainly not the idea of “I hope I’m saved!” as if one could not know
for certain if one was truly saved or not. Salvation is a certainty, not something that
should be “hoped” for in unbelief. But there is a hope that also accompanies that
certainty, the solid hope and expectation of full salvation!
By context, this “hope” deals with the salvation of the physical body, as we wait
for its redemption, when it is changed and made like His glorified body at the rapture.
And we “hope” that it may happen today! This is the “blessed hope” of the believer
(Titus 2:13).
24c We hope because we have not seen heaven, have not seen Christ with the
physical eye and have yet to experience the joy and blessedness of a glorified body.
We have laid our eyes on none of the things that God has promised for us. If we did
see them and could grasp them, then they would be the objects of hope but rather, of
sight. Hope and faith then operate on the same principle- things unseen. Thus, we
hope. But that hope will be turned to sight after death or rapture and then, we shall
hope no more because we will finally possess our hope then.
***************************************************************************************************
8:25 But if we hopepresent for that we seepresent not, then do we with patience
waitpresent middle for it.a
25a When you hope for something, you wait for it with anticipation until it comes to
pass. Then it is hope fulfilled, and we have nothing more to live for in this particular
context.
**************************************************************************************************
257
76. The Intercession of the Spirit 8:26,27
8:26a Likewise the Spirit also helpethpresent middle our infirmities:b for we knowpresent
not what we should prayaorist subjunctive for as we ought:c-present but the Spirit itselfd
maketh intercessione-present for usf with groaningsg which cannot be uttered.h-i
26a
His divine enablement- “helpeth our infirmities”
His divine enlightenment- “we know not what we should pray for as we ought”
His divine encouragement- “the Spirit itself maketh intercession” (Ian Paisley,
An Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, page 133).”
26b “infirmities” Strong’s #769 asyeneia astheneia; malady; morally, frailty, disease,
weak, sick. These would include our trials and tribulations as well as our physical and
spiritual weaknesses and sicknesses. Paul was certainly a man well-acquainted with
trials, troubles and infirmities (see 2 Corinthians 11:23-29 for a list of Paul’s ministerial
“qualifications”). Paul gave us the example of how the Christian is to survive his
infirmities. The less he depended on his flesh the more of “the power of Christ” was
given him (2 Corinthians 12:9) by the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:10-12). Because of the help
of the Holy Spirit, Paul was able to “glory” in his infirmities and “take pleasure” in them
(2 Corinthians 12:9,10), which simply is not natural for anyone to be able to do! If the
Spirit helps us in our prayers because of our infirmities then it is because we are weak
and need all the help we can get from the Spirit for anything and everything we do.
Notice that “infirmities” is in the plural. This is not the general fact that we are
weak but relates to the various types and manifestations of our weaknesses. This is the
same difference between “sin” and “sins”. “Sin” relates to our sin nature. “Sins’ relates
to our individual sins. The same goes for “infirmity” and “infirmities”. “Infirmity” relates
to our weak and helpless state spiritually. “Infirmities: would list our our individual
manifestations of these weaknesses.
26c Showing our spiritual ignorance. Because you may have a Th.D., in religion or
because you have been saved 50 years or have preached 10,000 sermons does not
exempt you from the condemnation of our spiritual ignorance of the ways and wills of
God and how we should pray and what we should pray for. We think we know what we
should pray for and we think we know what the will of God is for whatever situation we
may find ourselves in or what we are praying about, but we really don’t. We are often
guilty of imposing our wants onto God’s will and confounding the two. For example,
Paul was ignorant in his praying about his “thorn in the flesh” until God straightened him
out on it (2 Corinthians 12:8,9).
The “ought” probably deals both with the manner and the material of our prayers.
We don’t know how to pray or what we ought to pray for, which is why the help of the
Spirit is so desperately needed by the saints.
26d “The Spirit itself” See extended notes under 8:16. The Greek uses the neuter,
hence the neuter pronoun in the English versions. Since the Holy Spirit is a Spirit and
does not normally have a body, He is referred to in the neuter pronoun. But this does
258
not damage the doctrine of the personality of the Holy Spirit since He is referred to in
the masculine pronoun in other verses. Jesus is called a “which” 1 John 1:1 and
believers are called “whatever” in 1 John 5:4. We see something similar in Philippians
4:13, where Paul refers to Jesus as a “which” instead of a “who”. The King James
translators are literally rendering the neuter Greek pronoun into the proper English
usage. Christ is called a “holy thing” in Luke 1:35. The Holy Spirit is called “itself” by
Paul in Romans 8:16. Neuter pronouns are perfectly acceptable
to use when referring to persons. Even today, many people will refer to babies (born
and unborn) as “it”.
The Geneva and King James both use “itself”, which is an accurate rendering of
the Greek. The Tyndale, Coverdale and Bishops do not use a pronoun here. The ESV
makes its usual mistake with “himself” despite the gender being neuter here.
26e “maketh intercession for us” A precious promise of prayer. When we pray, we
do so in ignorance. We think we know what we need or what is best for us but in reality
we don't. But the Spirit does. He helps us in our ignorance. God desires us to pray but
we must realize how poor even our best prayers are. One ministry of the Holy Spirit to
the believer is this help in the prayer closet. As we pray, He collects those prayers,
remolds them into more acceptable petitions and delivers them up to the Father for
consideration.
Prayer becomes a necessity in the midst of our groanings. We would never get
through our trials and tribulations without prayer and without the help of the Holy Spirit
in both our prayers and in our circumstances.
The Holy Spirit also prays for us before the Father when we are in periods of
distress and trial. He can do this as He can see what the true purpose of the Father is
in our trials. We can’t. But He does, so He knows exactly how to pray for us to ask the
Father for the graces we will need to make it through our trials in such a way as to
glorify the Father and to better and improve us.
26f The Spirit cannot help us in our prayer life if we are not praying and interceding.
The Spirit's intercession is a very person ministry of Him to us as He personally
intercedes for us individually. No matter how ignorant the prayer or how halting or
fearful, the Spirit works with us and shows us what to pray for and how to pray and
intercedes on our behalf
26g This is the word “stenagmos”, which is only used here and in Acts 7:34, where
Stephen is making his defense before the Sanhedrin, where he mentions the groanings
of the children of Israel in their Egyptian bondage.
26h Groanings that cannot be uttered are prayers that cannot be refused. Believers
groan in prayer- unbelievers groan without prayer. This goes much deeper than simply
saying a prayer at the dinner table or shooting off a quick “Now I lay me down to
sleep…” ditty before bedtime. This is work, mighty wrestlings with God, where you must
have the answer or die, and will not take a “no” for an answer.
These groaning may not be uttered by man but they can be understood by God.
259
26i These groanings have nothing to do with praying in an unknown tongue, as some
Charismatics have tried to interpret! Tongues can certainly be uttered- these deep
prayers cannot!
*************************************************************************************************
8:27 And he that searchethpresent active participle the heartsa knowethpresent what is the
mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercessionb-1793-present for the saintsc
according to the will of God.d
27a Who "searches the hearts"? This must be the Christ (see Revelation 2:23) for He
knows what the "mind of the Spirit is" when the Spirit takes our prayers, rearranges
them as presentable to the Father so that He may act upon them. We don't know what
we should pray for. We often pray for the wrong thing or for a poor thing or just plain
foolishly. The Holy Spirit re-packages our prayers as what we truly
need, not what we think we need or selfishly want. The Spirit knows the will of God
much better than do we so He is better able to pray for us than we are.
27b “maketh intercession” is a different Greek word than found in 8:26. Here, it is
Strong’s #1793 entugcanw entugchanô; from en en (Strong’s #1722) in; and tugcanw
tugchanô (Strong’s #5177) hit the mark; to light upon a person or a thing, fall in with, hit
upon, a person or a thing, to go to or meet a person, especially for the purpose of
conversation, consultation, or supplication, to pray, entreat, make intercession for any
one
27c Not for sinners. There is no intercessory ministry by the Holy Spirit for an unsaved
man since they cannot even pray in the first place.
27d “according to the will of God” This is always the deciding factor as to if and how
God will answer prayer. He will answer if the prayer is prayed according to His will and
if the answer will further His will. We should never be praying according to our will but
onloy to His, as the will of God is always superior to the will of man,
The Tyndale, Coverdale and Bishops use “pleasure” for “will”. The Geneva and
ESV agree with the King James.
****************************************************************************************************
77. All Things Work Together For Good 8:28
8:28a And we knowpresent that all things work togetherpresent for goodb-c to them that
lovepresent active participle God, to them who arepresent active participle the called according to
his purpose.d-e
28a This is the great promise of God's control and oversight of our life. Which Christian
has never quoted this verse at one time in his life? When the house burnt down, who
260
has not quoted these words? When the baby goes into the hospital or we lose our job,
these words carry an extra-special comfort.
28b “all things work together for good” All circumstances, as being ordained and
ordered by God, are all part of His over-arching providence and it all serves His will, no
matter how random or chaotic they may seem to be to us. It is not God working here
but circumstances that are ordered by God and ordained by God that are working for
us.
28c “good” is not necessarily material good, as in having money and possessions, but
it is always spiritual good to us. Notice that all things work together for good, not "our
good". God is good and all things work together for good. So things work on our behalf
for the ultimate glory of God and that is good for us.
A Biblical commentary on this would be Joseph’s remarks in Genesis 50:20(in
Modern English) “"And as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for
good in order to bring about his present result, to preserve many people alive". The evil
his brothers selling him as a slave into Egypt was turned into good by God to save the
lives of many from the famine and to work out the overall plan of God on behalf of the
nation of Israel.
Only the King James and ESV use “for good”. The other translations have it as
“for the best”.
28d “All things work together for good only to them that love God and who are
the called according to His purpose.” This promise does not extend to the unsaved
man since he does not love God. If he did love God, he'd get saved. What about a
backslider whose love has grown cold? How much of this promise can he claim, if any?
"To them who are the called according to His purpose" would have the idea of a
Christian engaged in some form of service, fulfilling the purpose for which the Lord
saved him and called him. Busy Christians quote the verse much more than those who
are engaged in no labor for the kingdom. The Christian who is familiar with the crucible
has much more experience with the verse and a better understanding of it than the
nominal Christian. How much of this verse can a lazy, pew-warming, Sunday-morningonly Christian claim, seeing he is fulfilling none of the Lord's will and is suffering from a
lukewarm love toward God?
28e “You may have heard also the story of that eminent martyr who was likely always
to say, “all things work together for good.” When he was seized by the officers of Queen
Mary to be taken to the stake to be burned, he was treated so roughly on the road that
he broke his leg. And they jeeringly said, “All things work together for good, do they?
How will your broken leg work for your good?” “I don’t know how it will,” said he, “but for
my good I know it will work and you shall see it so.”
“By God’s grace it proved true that it was for his temporal good. For being
delayed a day or so on the road through his lameness, he arrived in London in time
enough to hear that Elizabeth was proclaimed queen and so he escaped the stake by
his broken leg. He turned round upon the men who carried him, as they thought, to his
261
death and said to them, “Now will you believe that all things work together for good?”
(Charles Spurgeon, “The True Christian’s Blessedness”, New Park Street Pulpit, volume
3, sermon 159).”
****************************************************************************************************
78. Predestination, Foreknowledge, Calling, Justification, Glorification 8:29,30
8:29a For whom he did foreknow,b-aorist he also did predestinatec-d-aorist to be
conformed to the image of his Son,e-f that he might be the firstborn among many
brethren.g
29a These are misunderstood verses by Calvinists who relate predestination to
salvation. They say something along the lines of "God, through the determinate
counsel of His sovereign will, predestinated some to go to heaven and some to go to
hell" or something like that. Wrong. Predestination does not deal with salvation but
rather with sanctification. An unsaved person cannot be predestinated to heaven or
hell. Rather, the Christian is predestinated "to be conformed to the image of His Son".
Only Christians can be predestinated and this only extends to his sanctification as he is
slowly and gradually conformed to the image of Christ. This involves the growth
process in a Christian where God is bringing him to the point that he is more and more
like Jesus in his life, speech and service. This process will be completed when we
receive our glorified bodies. This conformity is a painful lifetime process and God
prunes away those things in our life that do not speak of Christ.
29b We need to look at the word "foreknow". What is foreknowledge? It is to know
something beforehand. According to 1 Peter 1:2, the foreknowledge of God is the basis
of election. Don't let the Calvinists scare you away from the Bible doctrine of election.
God does elect men unto salvation. The crux is "What is the basis of that election?"
There are two possibilities: the "sovereign will of God" in that God chose you for no
other reason than His sovereignty, or based on His foreknowledge that you would
repent and believe the Gospel. First Peter 1:2 clearly supports the second position,
destroying a key Calvinist heresy.
The foreknowledge of our salvation comes before our predestination as
Christians to be conformed to the image of Christ. No one can be predestinated until he
has been foreknown and thus elected since no unsaved man can be conformed to the
image of Christ. The unsaved man will be conformed to an image but it will be the
image of his father the Devil, that serpent, that old Dragon!
Foreknowledge then is associated with both election (1 Peter 1:2) and
predestination (our text) and there is no way the Calvinist can escape that truth without
denying Scripture.
29c We are:
1. Predestinated to adoption- Ephesians 1:5
2. Predestinated to the purpose and will of God- Ephesians 1:11
3. Predestinated to sanctification- Romans 8:29
262
29d The Tyndale and Coverdale use “ordained before” for “predestinate”.
29e “image of His Son” Some (like Peter Ruckman) wrongly interpret this as literally
saying that our glorified bodies are going to be exact carbon copies of Christ's glorified
body. We will all look alike, including the women, who will supposedly receive male
glorified bodies! This "image of Christ" is not a physical one but a spiritual one. We will
all be sinless with a glorified body just like Christ's. We will think as He does, love what
He does and hate what He hates. The only physical characteristic of this conformity is
toward the nature of our glorified body, which will have the same properties and powers
as His.
The Tyndale and Coverdale use “the shape of his son”.
29f “image of His Son” Adam was created in the likeness of God the Father, but we
must be born again to be made into the image of God the Son. In this sense, Christians
have a two-fold image of God- by creation and one by redemption.
29g The five-link chain of God’s dealings with us:
1. He foreknew us
2. He predestinated us
3. He called us
4. He justified us
5. He will glorify us
****************************************************************************************************
8:30a Moreover whom he did predestinate,b-aorist themc he also called:aorist and
whom he called,aorist themb he also justified:aorist and whom he justified,aorist them he
also glorified.d-aorist
30a Notice the progression of the Christian's experience in 8:30 (those who have been
predestinated):
1. We were called (salvation)
2. We were justified (occurred at moment of salvation)
3. We were glorified. We were glorified at our salvation and will be even more so
at our reception of our glorified bodies when we will delivered from sin forever.
30b The Tyndale has “appointed before” and the Coverdale has “ordained before” for
“predestinate.
30c Emphatic.
30d Those who are Christians have been called, justified and glorified.
****************************************************************************************************
263
79. Who Shall Be Against Us? 8:31,32
8:31 What shall we then sayfuture to these things?a If God be for us, who can be
against us?b
31a Paul now begins to conclude the doctrinal section of Romans (the first 8 chapters)
by this question. The answer, which Paul takes the rest of the chapter to expound, is no
one! Sure we have plenty of enemies but who cares about them as long as God is for
us. Even if all creation were against us, we are still promised the victory because God
is for us. What is He for? God is for sanctification, holiness and conformity to Christ's
image. He is against sin, self and Satan.
31b “against us…” The Christian must have enemies and opposers for the godly
have always had them from the days of Abel. Our Lord had enemies by the bushel and
their numbers grow to this present hour. How can we expect to escape without foes?
But regardless of their numbers, their opposition to us, our walk and our ministry is
doomed to failure because Christ is for us. The favor of Christ trumps all the opposition
of man and devils. We may suffer their slings and arrows for a season here but we are
assured of the ultimate victory because Christ has already won that victory. With the
victory already secured, failure is impossible.
***************************************************************************************************
8:32 He that sparedaorist middle not his own Son, but delivered him upaorist for us all,a
how shall he not with him also freely givefuture middle us all things?b
32a The Geneva adds the idea that God gave up His Son for death, which none of the
other translations add.
32b God will withhold no good thing from us, seeing He gave the one thing most dear
to His heart: His Son on the cross. If the Father gave Jesus, His most precious
possession, then He would certainly give us all things. How can He deny us less
valuable things if He has already given us His Son?
****************************************************************************************************
80. Who Shall Condemn Us? 8:33,34
8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the chargefuture of God's elect?a-b It is God that
justifieth.c-d-present active participle
33a Who can bring anything to the charge of God's elect? Plenty try, including
Satan, the Accuser of the Brethren. Let them all try! All will fail! Let them blow as
much as they will. but it will be in vain. We have been justified by the blood of Christ
and nothing can challenge that. Who can possibly convince the elect of sin and hope to
win? It is God who has done the justifying of Christians and no one can undo it or say
264
anything against. It is the biggest waste of time and effort in the universe. Once God
has declared someone justified, that is it and nothing can be done against it.
33b “Most blessed challenge! How unanswerable it is! Every sin of the elect was laid
upon the great Champion of our salvation, and by the atonement carried away. There is
no sin in God's book against his people: he seeth no sin in Jacob, neither iniquity in
Israel; they are justified in Christ forever. When the guilt of sin was taken away, the
punishment of sin was removed. For the Christian there is no stroke from God's angry
hand--nay, not so much as a single frown of punitive justice. The believer may be
chastised by his Father, but God the Judge has nothing to say to the Christian, except "I
have absolved thee: thou art acquitted." For the Christian there is no penal death in this
world, much less any second death. He is completely freed from all the punishment as
well as the guilt of sin, and the power of sin is removed too. It may stand in our way, and
agitate us with perpetual warfare; but sin is a conquered foe to every soul in union with
Jesus. There is no sin which a Christian cannot overcome if he will only rely upon his
God to do it. They who wear the white robe in heaven overcame through the blood of
the Lamb, and we may do the same. No lust is too mighty, no besetting sin too strongly
entrenched; we can overcome through the power of Christ. Do believe it, Christian, that
thy sin is a condemned thing. It may kick and struggle, but it is doomed to die. God has
written condemnation across its brow. Christ has crucified it, "nailing it to his cross." Go
now and mortify it, and the Lord help you to live to his praise, for sin with all its guilt,
shame, and fear, is gone. (Charles Spurgeon, Morning and Evening, devotional for the
morning of July 27).”
33c “it is God that justifieth” Who dares bring a condemnation against a man
declared innocent by the highest court in the universe? Who dares question the judicial
righteousness of God and the power of Christ's atonement? Satan is arrogant and
stupid enough to, but even those efforts are futile.
33d God alone can justify the sinner. He cannot be justified by his own works, the law,
his own spirituality, the sacraments or ordinances, the church he belongs to, etc.
Justification unto salvation is the work of God that is impossible to man and a ministry
that it denied to him.
***************************************************************************************************
8:34a Who is he that condemneth?b-present active participle It is Christ that died,c-aorist active
participle
yea rather, that is risen again,d-aorist passive participle who ispresent even at the right
hand of God, who also maketh intercessionpresent for us.e
34a Verse 34 shows that Christ is not presently unemployed in heaven but is
functioning as our High Priest in making intercession for us before the heavenly mercy
seat. Hebrews 4,9 and 10 develop this theme about the present work of Christ more
closely.
265
34b “Who is he that condemneth?” Paul lays this down as a challenge to Satan, the
devils, the world and its minions, to attempt to bring any charge against a Christian who
has been justified by the blood of Christ. Who dares attempt to condemn when God
Himself has justified? Who will disannul that legal decree or imagine himself powerful
enough to undo that justifying work of Christ on the sinner’s behalf? Many will try but
none will succeed in condemning a man who has been justified and declared righteous
by the very God of all Eternity Himself, for none can undo or spoil the redemptive work
of Christ on the cross. There is only one Judge and that is Jesus. If He does not
condemn us, then who can? He will not condemn those who have trusted in His blood,
so we are quite safe this kind of condemnation.
34c Christ died for us to secure the grounds and means of our justification. Who can
undo that? Who would dare to call His work into question when it has been accepted by
the Father, as seen in the resurrection of Christ?
34d “yea, rather that is risen again” It is not so much the death of Christ that brings
about this justification but His resurrection. The resurrection was the token that the
Father accepted the work of Christ on the cross and that it was successful since He was
fully obedient to the will of the Father. If the Father had not risen Christ from the dead,
then the work on the cross would have been in vain on our behalf since it would have
been obvious that the Father did not reject it, due to some flaw in Christ’s person or
work. But happily, such was not the case!
34e “Is it not a noble thing for a Christian to be able to go where he may and feel that
he cannot meet his accuser? That wherever he may be, whether he walks within himself
in the chambers of conscience, or out of himself among his fellow men, or above
himself into Heaven, or beneath himself into Hell, yet is he a justified one and nothing
can be laid to his charge? Who can condemn? Who can condemn? Yes, echo, O you
skies, reverberate, you caverns of the deep. Who can condemn when Christ has died,
has risen from the dead, is enthroned on high and intercedes?
“But all things pass away. I see the heavens on fire, rolling up like a scroll—I see
sun, moon and stars pale now their feeble light—the earth is tottering. The pillars of
Heaven are rocking. The grand assize is commenced—the herald angels descend, not
to sing, this time, but with thundering trumpets to proclaim, “He comes, He comes to
judge the earth in righteousness and the people in equity.” What says the Believer,
now? He says, “I fear not that assize, for who can condemn?” The great white throne is
set, the books are opened, men are trembling, fiends are yelling, sinners are
shrieking—“ Rocks hide us, mountains on us fall.” These make up an awful chorus of
dismay. There stands the Believer, and looking round on the assembled universe of
men and angels, he cries, “Who shall lay anything to my charge?” And silence reigns
through earth and Heaven.
“Again he speaks, and fixing his eyes full on the Judge Himself, he cries, “Who is
he that condemns?” And lo, there upon the Throne of Judgment sits the only One who
can condemn. And who is that? It is Christ that died, yes rather, that is risen again who
sits on the right hand of God, who makes intercession for him. Can those lips say,
266
“Depart you cursed,” to the man for whom they once did intercede? Can those eyes
flash lightning on the man whom once they saw in sin and from there with rays of love
they did lift him up to joy and peace and purity? No, Christ will not belie Himself. He
cannot reverse His grace. It cannot be that the throne of condemnation shall be exalted
on the ruins of the Cross. It cannot be that Christ should transform Himself at last, but till
He can do so, none can condemn. None but He has a right to condemn, for He is the
sole Judge of right and wrong. And if He has died for us shall He put us to death? If He
has risen for us, shall He thrust us downwards to the pit? And if He has reigned for us
and has been accepted for us, shall He cast us away? And if He has pleaded for us,
shall He curse us at the last? No. Come life, come death—my soul can rest on this. He
died for me. I cannot be punished for my sin. He rose again, I must rise and though I
die, yet shall I live again. He sits at the right hand of God and so must I. I must be
crowned and reign with Him forever. He intercedes and He must be heard. He beckons
me and I must be brought at length to see His face and to be with Him where He is.
(Charles Spurgeon, “The Believer’s Challenge”, New Park Street Pulpit, volume 5,
sermon 256).”
****************************************************************************************************
81. Who Shall Separate Us From The Love of Christ? 8:35-39
8:35 Who shall separatefuture us from the love of Christ?a shall tribulation,b or
distress,c or persecution,d or famine,e or nakedness,f or peril,g or sword?h
35a “Who shall separate us…” The answer is, in a word, nobody! Nothing and
nobody is powerful enough to undo the justifying work of God. And no external force
can separate us from the love of God. We can separate ourselves from the love of
Christ when we backslide but nothing will separate God and His love from us if we are
saved.
Cruel and wicked men have tried every form of persecuting the saints of God.
They have been more inventive in the torments which they have applied to Christians
than in almost anything else. Even the communists learned much from the Inquisition
and the State torturers as they practiced their craft upon believers. Yet no torture, no
rack, no imprisonment has ever separated them from Christ. They have clung to Him
after the manner of John Bunyan, who, when they said that he might go free if he would
promise not to preach the Gospel, said, “I will lie in prison till the moss grows on my
eyelids rather than I will ever make such a promise as that! If you let me out of prison
today, I will preach tomorrow, by the Grace of God”, which he did, even with the threat
of continued imprisonment. These sorrows are not sufficient to separate us from the
love of Christ.
The Greek structure shows a rhetorical denial of the possibility of anyone or
anything separating us from the love of Christ.
35b Tribulation should draw us closer to God and strengthen our faith rather than to
separate us from God. If tribulation severs you from God then we wonder what kind of
"salvation" you had. Tribulation would be defined then as "pressure from without". Ask
267
any martyr or anyone else who suffered without dying if they were closer to God and if
they felt the love of God stronger before their persecutions or after.
35c “distress” Strong's # 4730 stenocwria stenochôria; narrowness of room, calamity,
distress. This is trouble from within, as contrasted with tribulation.
35d “persecution” Strong's # 1375 diwgmov diôgmos; persecution. If we are
persecuted for righteousness' sake, it should draw us ever the closer to God. Even if no
public persecution exists we may well experience personal and private persecution.
35e “famine” When the refrigerator is empty, and the cupboard is bare would if affect
your relationship with God? Can you sing on an empty stomach? It was often this way
with George Muller as he had hungry orphans to feed, but such a temporal discourage
never shook his faith in an all-providing God. We don’t worry about this much today but
it was a constant possibility in Paul’s day.
35f “nakedness” This demonstrates the most extreme form of poverty, so as not to
even be able to afford a rough garment to cover yourself. Even such depths of poverty
cannot separate us from the love of Christ. Nakedness also involves great shame and
even that has no bearing on our relation to Christ’s love. Paul said in 1 Corinthians
4:11, "Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and
arebuffeted, and have no certain dwelling-place." Yet such a state of want did no
damage or harm to Paul’s spirituality or to his relationship to Christ at all. Besides, even
such a dire condition is only a temporary one for the Christian, as God will provide the
daily bread needed by His children.
35g “peril” This would be a life-threatening danger, a constant exposure to sudden
death. This dogged the early church continually, as the persecutions of the Caesars
could have overtaken a believer at any time. Used only here and in 2 Corinthians
11:26.
35h “sword” Death and martyrdom would certainly never separate us from the love of
God. The sword often pictures judicial death, such as being punished or put to death by
the State in persecution, something the early Christians were very familiar with and
something American Christians may be forced to acquaint themselves with soon. If
anything, such persecution would tend to strengthen the relation with Christ, not weaken
it, as any martyr would testify.
268
Comparison of word studies in verse 35:
KJV
Tyndale
Coverdale
Geneva
Bishops
ESV
1599
tribulation
tribulacion
trouble
tribulation
tribulation
tribulation
distress
anguysshe anguysh
anguish
anguishe
distress
persecution persecucion persecucion persecution persecution persecution
famine
honger
honger
famine
hunger
famine
nakedness nakednesse nakednesse nakedness nakednesse nakedness
peril
parell
parell
peril
peryll
danger
sword
swearde
swerde
sword
sworde
sword
***************************************************************************************************
8:36 As it is written,a-perfect passive For thy sake we are killedpresent passive all the day
long; we are accountedaorist passive as sheep for the slaughter.b
36a “as it was written” Perfect tense- it has been written and remains written, not to be
changed or altered. It is a completed action with continuous results or the continuance
of an act completed in the past. The components are always a past action and
continuous results. References to the Scriptures like this are often presented in the
perfect tense. "The just shall live by faith" is one of those unalterable truths of
Christianity. This perfect tense in reference to New Testament references to Old
Testament texts is used 62 times in the New Testament, 16 times in Romans (1:17;
2:24; 3:4,10; 4:17; 8:36; 9:13,33; 10:15; 11:8,26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3,9,21). This usage
of the perfect is a strong argument for the verbal and plenary preservation of the
Scripture, as the written Old Testament word stands forever and continues to.
36b “we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter” This is a quote from Psalm
44:22. Even being counted as sheep for the slaughter by the world which knows not
God or martyrdom does not in the least bit weaken God's love for us. God's love for His
own is not dependent upon what the world thinks about us. Rather, if the world hates
us, then we can be sure that God's loves us all the more. But the saints still have the
victory, even in the face of such a slaughter.
****************************************************************************************************
8:37 Nay,a in all these things we are more than conquerorsb-present through him that
lovedaorist active participle us.c-d-e
37a The earlier translations all use “nevertheless”. The ESV reads as the King James
with “no”. Why the “nevertheless?” It would have a slight difference in meaning as
using the simple negative.
37b “more than conquerors” Through Christ, we are not just conquerors but more
than conquerors. There is a difference between winning the Super Bowl by one point or
a hundred. You won under both scenarios but you have a greater victory under the
269
26
9
100-point win. In Christ, we simply didn't "squeak by" in our battle with sin but we utterly
destroyed it. We can conquer all these forces that would seek to
separate us from the love of God or to attack our justified standing with God through
Him that loved us. Nothing, not even ourselves, can overthrow the work and the love of
God on our behalf.
This verse is also the capstone of the Christian experience and standingconquerors- and moreso- through Christ! Paul summarizes the culmination of Christian
standing and state. He starts at our initial and natural state of sin and guilt, and Christ's
resulting work for us to remedy it, and to provide justification. Then comes the
knowledge of indwelling sin, and the Spirit's work within us, and deliverance from sin's
power through the work of Christ. Next, Paul deals with God before for the saints, on
their side in their struggles. Our sinful hearts, prone to legality and unbelief, with great
difficulty receive these comforting truths, that God is for us. We have failed and will
continue to fail in our battles against our old nature, but He is for us. We are ignorant,
but He is for us. We have not brought forth much spiritual fruit, but He is for us. If our
hearts would only surrender to the glorious fact that there are those whom God will
eternally be for, then we shall be ready to magnify the God of all grace!
“We conquer when we ourselves are conquered; we conquer by those which are
wont to conquer others; we beat our enemies with their own weapons (Matthew Poole,
Commentary on the Whole Bible).”
37c “him that loved us” his is obviously Christ.
37d The Tyndale adds the though of Christ helping us, instead of Christ providing this
victory on His own merits and power. The other translations have this correct.
37e If anything, these things listed in verses 35-37 would tend to strengthen Christian
profession. Just ask any martyr or apostle or anyone who suffered persecution or
imprisonment for Christ’s sake!
***************************************************************************************************
8:38a For I am persuaded,b-perfect passive that neither death,c nor life,d nor angels,e nor
principalities,f nor powers,g nor things present,perfect active participle nor things to
come,present active participle
38a Verses 38 and 39 are two of the greatest verses regarding to the security of the
believer.
38b “persuaded” Paul was no doubt fully persuaded, beyond any doubt, and beyond
the ability of Satan to sway his mind. The Bishops and ESV use a weaker “I am sure”.
The “persuasion” of the other versions give you the stronger idea of being totally
convinced of this fact, not just “sure” about it.
270
27
0
38c “death”. How could death separate us from the love of God? Death is that
transition from this world of woe to the eternal glories of heaven. Death would not
separate us from God but would bring us to Him!
38d “life” The right kind of life, lived in the power of the Spirit for the glory of God could
never separate us from the love of God.
38e “angels” A good angel would never want to separate us from the love of God while
a fallen angel never could.
38f “principalities” Strong's # 746 arch archê; a commencement, chief (in various
applications of order, time, place, or rank). It is somewhat difficult to really get a handle
on the definition of this word. “The English word is from the French word ‘principalite’,
meaning the government of a prince. A principality is a kingdom, state, country or realm
that is ruled by a prince (Laurence Vance, Archaic Words and the Authorized Version,
page 270).” The earlier translations render this as “rule” and the ESV has “ruler”.
38g “powers” Strong's # 1411 dunamiv dunamis; force, miraculous power. Nothing of a
supernatural power, not even the supernatural power of Satan, could separate us from
the love of God, We are held in a supernatural bond that is the most powerful force in
Creation.
The ESV seems to overlook translating “principalities” unless they rolled it into
“ruler”, which would be a translation error.
***************************************************************************************************
8:39 Nor height,a nor depth,b nor any other creature,c shall be ablefuture middle to
separateaorist infinitive usd from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
39a “height” Strong's # 5313 ‘uqwma hupsoma; an elevated place or thing, altitude, a
barrier. Nothing in heaven will separate us from God. This could also refer to prosperity
and the positive things in life. Prosperity can often be more harmful than persecution in
wrecking a man's spirituality since so few Christians know how to handle riches or
success.
39b “depth” Strong's # 899 bayov bathos; profundity, extent; mystery. Nothing in hell or
the underworld can separate us from Christ. These are the negative things in life, which
are not supposed to be able to diminish our spirituality or our relation to God.
39c The ESV continues its mistranslation of “creature” of the other versions with
“creation”, which is clearly not the same thing.
39d “shall be able to separate us” Again, absolutely nothing can undo it! Think of
what you will but all these are futile in any attempt they might make to wreck our
salvation or our relationship to Christ. It is not the external things we need fear but
rather the internal foes which reside in our own heart. These things within us are our
271
27
1
greatest enemies. I fear my own heart more than I fear Satan. He cannot harm me but
I can make my own salvation shipwreck.
The Tyndale’s “depart us” is probably the same idea as to separate us.
272
27
2
Romans Chapter 9
The thrust of the chapter is why God chose, or elected, Israel, over all the other
nations of the earth. Thus, Paul is dealing with national and racial election of Israel, not
personal and individual election to salvation. Trying to read personal and individual
election to salvation into Romans 9 will lead to theological errors and confusion. There
is how the Calvinists go wrong in their understanding of “unconditional election”.
Doctrines relating to Calvinist dogmas of ”unconditional election to salvation” do not
belong to Romans 9 as Paul is dealing with Israel and her election as God’s covenant
people, not to election to salvation. Thus, there are no proof texts to support the
Calvinist idea of “unconditional election” in Romans 9. Calvinists seem to imagine that
Romans 9-11 present an “unanswerable” presentation and defense of their theological
system but that is obviously not the case. They do get very arrogant and dogmatic
about it, saying that their commentaries on Romans 9 prove beyond any doubt their
positions on unconditional election. Yet such arguments are not difficult to refute if one
approaches this chapter without a doctrinal presupposition.
Charles Spurgeon, in his Commenting and Commentaries, while reviewing
commentaries on Romans, complained about non-Calvinists dealing with these
chapters and lamented as to why non-Calvinists just couldn’t leave these chapters
alone. It is the height of Calvinistic arrogance to think that only Calvinists were qualified
to comment on these chapters! Naturally, we will not allow ourselves to be intimidated
by such attitudes. Anyone, from any theological system (or those who claim no
theological system!) are at divine liberty to expound these verses, as much as any
Calvinist is. We will comment on these verses although we do not claim any allegiance
to any Calvinistic or Arminian theological system. We will approach these next three
chapters from a Bible-believing viewpoint, shunning the human theological systems as
much as possible.
There really is such a thing as “The Jewish Problem” but not in the way Adolph
Hitler or the anti-Semites define it. The “problem” is “What do we do with Israel in the
overall plan and economy of God? What is their present condition and what does the
future hold for them?”
“Calvin is wrong when he reads into these verses election either to salvation or to
damnation in the eternal sense. That is not their scope. They belong only to a Divine
economy of history. Paul opens the paragraph by asking: “Is there then
unrighteousness with God?”—and the rest of the paragraph is meant to show that the
answer is “No”; but if these verses referred to eternal life and death, there would be
unrighteousness with God; and that which is implanted deepest in our moral nature by
God Himself would protest that even God has no honourable (J. Sidlow Baxter, Explore
the Book, page 1492).”
Romans 9-11 from The Unfolding Drama of Redemption by W. Graham Scroggie, 3:142
Election of Israel 9:1-29
The Rejection of Israel
The Conversion of Israel
9:30-10:21
11:1-36
1. The Subjects 9:1-5
1. Righteousness was
1. The rejection is not total
sought by works and not by 11:1-10
273
27
3
2. The Vindication 9:6-29
faith 9:30-10:13
2. Opportunity and warning
were neglected 10:14-21
2. The rejection is not final
11:11-32
Doxology 11:33-36
Past
Present
Future
*************************************************************************************************
82. Paul's Burden For Israel 9:1-3
9:1 I saya-present the truth in Christ, I liepresent middle not,a-b my conscience also bearing
me witnesspresent active participle in the Holy Ghost,c
1a The ESV use of “I am speaking” is awkward as compared to the “I say…” that the
other versions use. The same holds true for the “I am not lying” as compared to the
more forceful “I lie not”.
1b “I speak the truth…I lie not” A most solemn oath, about as strong of an oath as a
Christian can make, even calling upon Christ to witness it and verify it. Paul makes as
strong a statement as he can to demonstrate that what he is about to say regarding his
burden for Israel is true and is not just a put-on or a lot of pious hot-air. He will speak in
a deliberate way in what he has to say.
1c “my conscience bearing me witness” It is when the conscience is under the
control of the Holy Spirit does it become a reliable guide, not otherwise since then it
may very well be defiled by sin. But Paul had a clear conscience which allowed him to
say what he is about to say truthfully. These were the same Jews who tried to kill him,
who persecuted his brethren, who blasphemed his Lord continually and who were
implacable against his gospel. Their hate towards him and Christ knew no bounds. Yet
Paul could still pray for them and desire their salvation, even if it had to involve his own
damnation. Paul harbored no resentment against his persecutors. Not only were these
Jews against Christ but they were also against Paul personally and would have killed
Paul as they did his Master. Forty of them bound themselves under a great curse to eat
no food or drink no water until they had tasted Paul’s blood. This is what Christianity
does in the heart- it makes you love for and pray for your enemies who would like to see
you dead. Can you pray for an enemy? Can you pray for those who despitefully use
you? A Spirit-filled Christian can- and will do these things.
Would we be able to pray for our “kinsmen after the flesh” as Paul prayed for his?
Can we pray for our fellow Americans (or for whatever ethnic group we belong),
knowing how wicked most of them are and how against the gospel they may be? Can
we have a burden for our own, for those in our own house, for our own wicked family
members who may have done us great injury?
***************************************************************************************************
9:2a That I havepresent great heavinessb and continual sorrow in my heart.c-d-e
274
27
4
2a This is what constitutes a burden for someone’s salvation, when that person (or in
this context, nation) is on your heart continually and you can think of nothing else. This
is the paradox of the Christian- he has a continual sorrow in his heart for the lost whom
he loves while at the same time enjoying the great joy which accompanies salvation.
2b “heaviness” Strong’s #3077 luph lupê, sorrow, pain, grief, annoyance, affliction ,
of persons mourning
2c “continual sorrow” Paul’s burden for the Jews was no “fly by night” thing or just
some emotional distress that came around whenever he sat in a missions conference.
It was continual with him, a constant companion that dogged every waking hour. It was
a permanent fixture with him and made up his spiritual fiber.
2d Naturally, the ESV, as all critical text versions, have to change from the traditional
readings at every opportunity they can. The ESV uses “great sorrow” for “great
heaviness” and “unceasing anguish” for “continual sorrow”. These changes do not
improve the traditional text readings.
2e “His grief for his nation and people he expresseth,
1. By the greatness of it; it was such as a woman hath in travail so the word
imports.
2. By the continuance of it; it was continual, or without intermission.
3. By the seat of it; it was in his heart, and not outward in his face. The cause he
doth not here set down, but it is easily gathered from what follows, viz. the obstinacy
and infidelity, together with the rejection, of the Jews. (Matthew Poole).”
***************************************************************************************************
9:3 For I could wisha-imperfect that myself wereinfinitive accursedb-c-d from Christe for my
brethren, my kinsmenf according to the flesh:g
3a “wish” is in the imperfect tense. Paul had started wishing this at some undisclosed
time in the past and he was still wishing this, as he had not yet stopped, as his burden
had not yet been fulfilled.
3b “accursed” Strong’s #331 anayema anathema, a gift given by vow or in fulfillment of
a promise, and given up or devoted to destruction for God’s sake, given up to the curse
and destruction, accursed. It answers to the Hebrew “cherem”, which the Septuagint
translates by it, and means either a thing or person separated from its former state or
condition, and devoted to destruction. In this sense it is used, Deuteronomy 7:25, 26;
Joshua 6:17, 18; 7:12. It denotes an indissoluble vow. Paul was willing to give of
himself as a sacrifice devoted to utter destruction and condemnation if it would result in
Israel’s salvation. In the fullest sense, Paul was willing to go to hell for his countrymen if
it would result in their salvation. Of course, it would not, as Paul was a sinner with his
own sins and a sinner cannot pay the sin debt for another sinner since he also has a
275
debt of his own that would first have to be discharged- impossible except through the
blood of Christ. There is therefore no way anyone could claim that Paul was antiSemitic in any of his writings. But what Paul wished for himself is what Jesus has
already done for the nation of Israel on the cross! Paul realizes he must be patient for
the salvation of Israel, as it will not happen in his lifetime, although he wishes he would
be alive to witness it.
The commentators and most critical text translations tend to water this down to
something like “separated from Christ” rather than “accursed from Christ”. The Geneva
Bible also has this weaker reading, although the ESV does use “accursed” but then
adds “cut off”, which is more of a commentary than a translation. They have difficulty
understanding such a burden because few of them have probably ever felt anything this
intense for someone’s conversion. Paul was willing to go to hell on behalf of the Jews if
it would have led to their salvation.
3c “I could wish myself accursed…” This may sound like pious dribble but Paul says
in 9:1 "My conscience bears me witness in the Holy Ghost". Paul's burden was genuine
and that was one of the secrets as to why God used Paul the way he did. And very few
Christians understand this kind of burden. Paul here is showing his willingness to be
cursed for Israel, but not its necessity. But could Paul use any stronger words to
express his crushing burden for the salvation of his people?
3d “I could wish myself accursed…” Compare with what Moses said in Exodus 32:32
"...blot me out of thy book!" Moses would have understood something about Paul's
burden for Israel. But what Moses couldn’t do and what Paul couldn’t do, Christ did on
the cross! He died for all men, both Jew and Gentile, since both Jew and Gentile
needed to be saved.
3e You can’t be accursed “in” Christ! You cannot be blessed “out” of Christ.
3f “my kinsmen” Although a Christian, Paul, a former Jew religiously, still considered
himself Jewish, at least racially.
3g
1. Israel’s Position- “my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh” 9:3
2. Israel’s Privilege- “Who are Israelites...and the service of God and the
promises” 9:4
3. Israel’s Pedigree- “whose are the fathers” 9:5 (Ian Paisley, An Exposition of
the Epistle to the Romans, page144).
**************************************************************************************************
83. God's Sovereignity in Regards To Israel 9:4-29
9:4 Who arepresent Israelites;a to whom pertaineth the adoption,b and the glory,c and
the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God,d and the
promises;
276
4a To be an Israelite was the highest honor a man could have in a national sense.
They had 7 spiritual advantages over the Gentiles. Israel had:
1. The adoption. Israel had Sonship (Exodus 4:22,23, Hosea 11:1)
2. The glory. This was demonstrated in the wilderness with the pillar of fire/cloud
and at the dedication of the Solomonic Temple in 1 Kings 8:10 and 2 Chronicles
5:13.
3. The covenants
A. Abrahamic Genesis 12,15
B. Mosaic Exodus 19,20
C. Palestinian Deuteronomy 30
D. Davidic 2 Samuel 7
The Gospel or the Church Age dispensation do not nullify any of these covenants
4. The giving of the Law in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5
5. The service of God (the priesthood and Levites)
6. The promises
7. The Fathers, or the Patriarchs (9:5)
No Gentile nation had any of these.
This was what troubled Paul so much concerning the Jews, that they should have such
extraordinary spiritual privileges and benefits. Yet it profited them nothing. They
rejected everything God gave them including Jesus Christ, Who was of their race, bone
of their bone, flesh of their flesh. Yet they would not receive Him. The terrible hardness
of the human heart! The hardness of their heart broke Paul’s heart.
4b “pertaineth to the adoption” While individuals may be adopted, Israel is the only
nation that will be adopted. No Gentile nation will be thus adopted. This is national
adoption, not individual adoption. Israel is often called God’s son and firstborn (Exodus
4:22; Deuteronomy 14:1; Hosea 11:1).
The Coverdale has an archaic word “childshippe” for “adoption”.
4c “the glory” The visible glory of God, seen at the tabernacle (with the glory of God
dwelling between the cherubim over the mercy seat) and later at the temple.
4d “the service of God” Namely, the priesthood and tabernacle/temple service. What a
great privilege it was for them to be given such a high and noble service to God!
****************************************************************************************************
9:5 Whose are the fathers,a-b and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who ispresent active participle over all, Godc blessed for ever. Amen.d
5a “the fathers” The patriarchs- Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the 12 sons of Jacob. No
Gentile nation has anything similar.
5b The ESV adds “from their race” after “patriarchs” (their rendering of “fathers”). None
of the traditional translations have anything about the “race”, so this is another
commentary-type addition.
277
5c “Christ…who is over all, God…” Christ is expressly called “God” in this verse.
5d “Amen” Paul does a very ”Jewish” thing by inserting a benediction here. This is
common in the rabbinical writings.
*************************************************************************************************
9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect.a-perfect For theyb are not
all Israel, which are of Israel:c
6a “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect” It had. It always does. The
problem was not with the Word of God but rather with the hard heart of the Jews, and
their willful rejection of that Word.
6b Emphatic.
6c “they are not all Israel…” These would be racial Jews who were not believing Jews.
They did not believe in the Abrahamic Covenant or in the coming of the Messiah. They
are non-observant. Paul says they are not really Jews at all. A good example today
would be many non-observant Jews (many of them of Russian heritage and origin) who
may be Jews as to their heritage but are atheistic. Paul says they are not truly of Israel.
Today, in a New Testament/Church Age context, we could say that everyone who is a
member of our Church is not a true Christian.
***************************************************************************************************
9:7a Neither, because they arepresent the seed of Abraham,b are they all children:c
but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.d-future
7a This verse refers to Genesis 21:12.
7b The Tyndale is a bit wordy here with “nether are they all chyldren strayght waye”. It
might be an attempt to emphasize that they are not not Jews simply because Abraham
was their father, although none of the other translations place any real emphasis on
this.
7c Ishamel, as the older son of Abraham, should have been chosen over Isaac,
humanly-speaking and as was the custom of that day, but God chose the younger- an
unnatural act. Just because a man is a child of Abraham does not mean he is of the
promised seed. The Arabs are of the seed of Abraham through Ishamel yet the
blessing is to the Jew through Isaac. Thus the Arabs, and by extension, the Muslims,
do not have the covenant or the promises that God made to Israel through Isaac. God
will do nothing through Islam as the blessing and the covenant is through Judaism.
7d Paul does not mention Ishmael here so there is no room for Islam in God’s plan for
mankind.
278
***************************************************************************************************
9:8 That is,present They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the
children of God:a but the children of the promise are countedpresent passive for the
seed.b
8a Simply being born a Jew does not automatically mean that one is saved any more
than one who is born into a Christian family does not automatically save that child.
Jews must be saved by faith in the Messiah in the same was that the Gentiles are.
Racial Jews are not the ones God counts for the seed, but Jews who are believing.
Just because someone was born into a Jewish home does not automatically mean that
he is saved, justified, or in the covenant. All that comes from belief and faith, not the
providence of birth.
8b Historically, Paul would be thinking about how the promise went through Isaac but
Ishmael and the children of Keturah, although physical descendants of Abraham, are
not counted as the seed.
“Seed” is a better reading than the ESV’s “offspring” here.
**************************************************************************************************
9:9a For this is the word of promise,b At this timec will I come,future middle and Sarah
shall havefuture middle a son.
9a This verse quotes Genesis 18:10.
9b The ESV omits “word”.
9c The ESV adds “next year”. “Next year” is not used in Genesis 18:10 nor is it in the
text, so this is another instance of the ESV adding a commentary instead of simply
translating.
**************************************************************************************************
9:10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also hadpresent active participle conceived by
one, even by our father Isaac;7d
***************************************************************************************************
9:11 (For the children being not yet born,aorist passive participle neither having doneaorist
active participle
any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might
a-b-present active subjunctive
stand,
not of works, but of him that calleth;)c-d-present active participle
11a The reason why God chose Isaac over Ishmael or Jacob over Esau had nothing to
do with works, wither good or bad, on anyone’s part. God had His reasons for the
selections He made and they were not dependent upon works. God had other reasons
to choose Jacob over Esau than their supposed “goodness” or merit. But God never
really has disclosed what that reason is, and is not really obligated to do so. The
279
sovereignty of God is the basis for this election of one person over the other for the
covenants and the nation.
11b “according to election” In this context, this election is not unto salvation but rather
to service, nationhood and through whom the promises and covenants would go to and
through. Not all of God’s elective acts deal with salvation. Here, God is choosing one
brother over another to work His overall plans for the human race and in relation to
which nation He will work through in the giving of the covenants. It is clear that God’s
elections sometimes deal with only one or two people for special callings and service.
11c “…him that calleth” 1 Peter 1:2 really can’t be run in here as Peter there is clearly
discussing election unto personal salvation while Paul is discussing the reasons behind
Israel’s election as the covenant nation. Peter makes it very clear that election to
individual salvation is based to some degree upon God’s foreknowledge. But here, Paul
says that foreseen good works is not a basis for election. How to resolve the apparent
contradiction? Simply realize that Paul is not discussing individual election to salvation,
as Peter is, but rather is discussing the reasons why God chose Isaac over Ishmael and
Jacob over Esau. Although both Peter and Paul are discussing election, they are
discussing different elements of it, so they cannot be directly compared.
11d The Tyndale pushes the last part of the verse into verse 12.
****************************************************************************************************
9:12a It was saidaorist passive unto her, The elder shall servefuture the younger.b-c-d
12a This verse refers to Genesis 25:23, with Esau and Jacob. It could be further
extended to Ishmael and Isaac, but that is not as solid, as both had different mothers,
born years apart. But Esau and Jacob were twins, of the same mother, so they are
Paul’s primary burden here.
12b Again God chose the younger over the older, which is the reverse of the usual
order. Esau should have gotten the blessing and the covenants, but Jacob got both.
God chose Israel over Edom. Why? Again, this was a choice and selection of God to
operate in this fashion. It was not because Isaac and Jacob were “better” than
Ishmael or Esau, since works did not enter into these elections. It was based on the
sovereignty of God.
12c The elder shall serve the younger is completely backwards as compared to the
almost universal practice and belief in Biblical days. The firstborn got all the goodies- a
double portion of the inheritance, the “power of attorney” from his father, etc. The oldest
was always regarded with more honor than his younger siblings. But again, God is
sovereign and is under no constraint. He may work in any fashion He pleases without
restricting Himself to the norms and traditions of human societies.
12d The Coverdale has “greater” and “lesser” rather than younger and older, which
280
would be a mistranslation. It may be true that in the Hebrew mind the older is the
greater and the younger is the lesser but that is commenting rather than translating.
**************************************************************************************************
9:13 As it is written,a-perfect passive Jacob have Ib loved,aorist but Esau have Ib hated.c-daorist
13a “As it is written” Perfect tense- it has been written and remains written, not to be
changed or altered. It is a completed action with continuous results or the continuance
of an act completed in the past. The components are always a past action and
continuous results. References to the Scriptures like this are often presented in the
perfect tense. "The just shall live by faith" is one of those unalterable truths of
Christianity. This perfect tense in reference to New Testament references to Old
Testament texts is used 62 times in the New Testament, 16 times in Romans (1:17;
2:24; 3:4,10; 4:17; 8:36; 9:13,33; 10:15; 11:8,26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3,9,21). This usage
of the perfect is a strong argument for the verbal and plenary preservation of the
Scripture, as the written Old Testament word stands forever and continues to.
13b The Tyndale uses “he” instead of “I” both times.
13c “Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated” Quoted from Malachi 1:2-5. Hated
how? If this election was not based on works, then why would Esau be hated and
Jacob loved? Of course, there is more to this election than meets the eye in the mind of
God. While works may not have been a factor in this election, there was still something
in Esau’s character and personality that God did not approve of and was actively
opposed to. That’s clear when we see how carnal he was. Or is this “hatred” just
another way of saying that God loved Jacob more than He did Esau? Is this “hatred”
simply a comparative term? I do not think it is wise to dilute the “hated” here. God did
love Jacob more than Esau, but what the ultimate basis for this was is not specially told
us. God’s “hatred” of Esau was justified, seeing how Esau turned out as a man of the
flesh and how his descendants persecuted Israel. Not that there was a lot of love about
Jacob, humanly speaking, as he was a liar, a cheat and a swindler, who played
favorites with his children and was given to severe bouts of self-pity. Jacob did turn out
“alright” at the end of his long life, but there is a deeper reason as to why God reacted to
these two men in the way that He did, and that justification is never clearly discussed in
Scripture. God did wrestle with Jacob but he never bothered to visit Esau in such a
manner.
13d Why was Esau hated? Doesn’t God love all men? He does, for “God so loved the
world” and He desires all men everywhere to be saved. These are theological facts.
But when did God start hating Esau? From eternity past or as Esau’s character
developed? After all, he had the birthright and the blessing but he wasted them. He
sought to murder his brother. He married heathen women, much to the despair of his
parents. He certainly was not a lover of God or of the things of God as his grandfather
Abraham was. Was God’s attitude toward Esau based on His foreknowledge (1 Peter
281
1:2) of his character and actions? When this hatred “kicked in” regarding Esau is not
told. God simply said He hated Esau, but never says why or when He started hating
him, or what exactly this hating entailed spiritually, God loves men because it is His
nature to love, but He will hates these same men if they hate Him and oppose Him, as
so many do. If God ends up hating a man, it is because that man has earned the wrath
of God upon him.
****************************************************************************************************
9:14a What shall we sayfuture then? Is there unrighteousnessb with God?c God
forbid.d-aorist middle optative
14a These verses make up the strongest discussion of the sovereignty of God in the
Bible.
14b The ESV makes another unnecessary change with “injustice” for
“unrighteousness”.
14c “Is there unrighteousness with God?” No doubt there will be many who will
object to God making His election on whatever basis He did. “If it wasn’t by works, then
on what basis did you choose the younger over the elder? On what basis do you love
Jacob and hate Esau? God’s choices are not fair!” Since God is not basing these
actions or feelings on human emotions or reasoning, man has difficulty in trying to figure
them out and accept them. Until He can, he will charge God with unrighteousness and
of not being fair in His dealings.
14d “God forbid” Do not even entertain the thought that there is any unrighteousness
with God in how He deals with men in the context of His will and overall plan. There is
absolutely no unrighteousness in Him or in what He does or in how He does it. Simply
because we do not or cannot understand it, or because God has not chosen to
completely and fully explain Himself or His reasons is no basis to start questioning His
righteousness.
Man acts in a sovereign manner on occasion. We decide who to marry, what
kind of job to take, what kind of car to buy, who we want playing on our team. This is
natural and expected. Why would we deny God the same privileges while demanding
them for ourselves?
****************************************************************************************************
9:15a For he saithpresent to Moses, I will have mercy onfuture whom I will have
mercy,present active subjunctive and I will have compassionfuture on whom I will have
compassion.b-present active subjunctive
15a This verse is a quote from Exodus 33:19, with respect to those who fell away in the
incident with the golden calf.
15b The Coverdale places the last “compassion” into verse 16.
282
*************************************************************************************************
9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth,present active participle nor of him that runneth,apresent active participle
but of God that sheweth mercy.b-c-present active participle
16a The Tyndale has “cunning” instead of “running”. I don’t think that is a typo, seeing
the two words sound so similar, but that the Tyndale is expanding on the “will”, as in one
who is trying to work or earn God’s favor. The ESV does something similar with its use
of “so then it depends not on human will or exertion”.
16b This would not be based on Israel's merit but on God's mercy and grace. No one
deserves God's mercy nor can it be earned by any human merit or religious exercise,
much like grace,
16c This is a Calvinistic proof-text to try to build up the unscriptural idea of
“unconditional election” and “sovereign grace” in the salvation of sinners. But as we
have said in this chapter, Paul is not discussing individual salvation, but rather is
discussing God’s dealing with Israel and the Gentile nations. This verse does not deal
with salvation, but rather where, when and under what circumstances God will have or
show mercy. In the various circumstances and situations of life, God will decide where,
when and if He will show mercy to a sinner, as seen in His dealings with the Pharaoh of
the Exodus.
**************************************************************************************************
9:17a For the scripture saithpresent unto Pharaoh,b Even for this same purpose have
I raised thee up,c-aorist that I might shewaorist middle subjunctive my power in thee,d and that
my name might be declaredaorist passive subjunctive throughout all the earth.e-f-g
17a This verse quotes Exodus 9:16.
17b Notice the phrase "For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh..." Not “Moses” said to
Pharaoh, but “the scripture”. And Pharaoh had utter contempt for it. We see several
interesting things about the scriptures here:
1. The scriptures are living- they can speak! They are not simply some scraps of
paper lying around. The Bible is literally alive. It is the Book of God and has the life and
power of God within it.
2. There was some form of the scriptures available in Pharoah's day. The Bible
as we have it did not exist in this day, but SOMETHING in a written form was available
to witness to Pharaoh.
3. The scriptures are given human characteristics. This is because the
Scriptures have life.
4. The scriptures are not just the long-lost originals but also include accurate
copies of those originals.
Compare this with Galatians 3:8 where the scriptures foresee and preach.
283
17c The pre-King James translations use “stirred thee up” while the KJV and ESV both
use “raised up”.
17d “I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee” What a blow to
Pharaoh’s ego. At this time in history, Pharaoh was probably the most powerful king of
the most powerful nation on the earth, yet God said that he was nothing more than a
tool through which God would glorify Himself. No wonder Pharaoh resisted God and
hardened his heart as he did, for he had absolutely no intention of acknowledging such
a truth concerning how the God of his slaves was really the One in Charge instead of
him.
17e “that my name might be declared throughout all the earth “And it was! See
Rahab’s testimony in Joshua 2:10,11.
17f “The fact is that Pharaoh’s hardening by God is a judicial act of God’s moral
government in the world. In Exodus 3:19 it is stated by Jehovah that the King of Egypt
would not let them go. That was indeed the case, but the fact is that God acted upon a
heart already hard, the hardening by God being historically noted as occurring after the
notice that Pharaoh hardened his heart (though God predicted that He would harden
Pharaoh’s heart) -- and that is the patent fact. God does not make the heart evil, but it
being evil and manifesting its hardness in rejecting the testimony brought to that heart,
God confirms such a one in his manifested obduracy. Psalm 105:25 and Exodus 12:36,
do not alter this fact, nor does Proverbs 21:1. God hardened Sihon also (Deuteronomy
2:30) as he subsequently did with Canaanites (Joshua 11:19, 20). In cases such as
Pharaoh’s, where sufficient particulars are given, we can see that God’s judicial act of
His moral government in hardening fell upon them after certain conduct. This is also
quite evident in Romans 1:24 (“wherefore God gave them up . . .”), Romans 1:26 (“for
this reason God gave them up . . .”), and Romans 1:28 (“And according as they did not
think good to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up to a reprobate mind . ..”).
(R. A. Huebner, Thy Precepts, May/June 2007, number 219).”
17g The Coverdale has “all the lodes” for “all the world”. “Lodes” must be an archaic
term for “world” or “earth”.
*************************************************************************************************
9:18 Therefore hath he mercypresent on whompresent he will have mercy, and whom
he willpresent he hardeneth.a-b-c-present
18a God hardened his heart in order that God could demonstrate His power. Pharaoh
hardened his own heart (Exodus 8:32; 9:34) and God did too (Exodus 4:21; 7:3,13). If
Pharaoh had let Israel go the first time Moses asked him, God would have had no
chance to manifest anything. But Israel now would have a reminder of what God did for
them and of His power through God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart. The heart is “hard”
when it is incapable of receiving divine impressions. To ”harden” is to make less
284
susceptible of such impressions.
18b “Now it is remarkable, that of the twenty passages which speak of Pharaoh’s
hardening, exactly ten ascribe it to Pharaoh himself and ten to God (John Phillips,
Exploring Romans, page 150).”
18c The Tyndale has “hard hearted”.
**************************************************************************************************
9:19 Thou wilt sayfuture then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault?a-b-present middle/passive
For who hath resistedperfect his will?c-d
19a “Why doth he yet find fault?” The question then comes up "Why did God punish
Pharaoh for something God did to him? If God elected him (and other sinners) to
reprobation, then why and how can God condemn him?" A supposedly reprobate sinner
could ask the same thing. “Why is God mad at me? If I am reprobate and have no
chance to be saved, then why is God angry with me if I am living the way He
(negatively) elected me to? God made me this way so I can’t help it (the excuse of the
homosexual!)” But since there is no “decree of reprobation”, the sinner has no excusr to
live as he pleases. He could be saved, like the Pharaoh of Exodus had chance after
chance to obey God yet would not due to his pride. Pharaoh dug his own hole and God
simply shoveled in the dirt. He could have avoided it but God knew Pharaoh would
resist so He hardened His heart in order to make an example out of him. Pharaoh
hardened his own heart in Exodus 8:15. Sinners are in the same boat with Pharaoh,
with no excuse. And if they go to hell, they will not be able to blame the “reprobation” or
God. They will be forced to blame themselves at the Great White Throne Judgment
because there, God will show them every witness they received and every chance they
had to be saved, and will also demonstrate their rejection of that witness. They will then
be forced to condemn themselves and agree that God’s judgment on them is just. They
will not be able to reply against Him at all.
19b “The men who ask why God finds fault with them are men justly condemned, as
Paul proved in Romans 1:18; 3:20, for their own sins, whom God might justly destroy at
once. To do so, would manifest His righteous anger and great power. But so great is His
longsuffering that He permits them to live, and uses means for their salvation. He
spares them because He has purposes of mercy, because He wishes to prepare men
whom He will cover with His own abundant glory. Therefore He prolongs the world’s
probation. Can men whose life is spared only because God forbears to act on principles
of mere justice, and forbears because of His purpose of mercy to mankind at large, can
such men reply to God when He declares what He will do with them? With more justice
might a prisoner who but for the king’s respite had been put to death complain of prison
fare (Joseph Beet).” The point here is those men who complain the most about the
justice of God are those who usually the most deserving of God’s wrath. A righteous
man knows his corruptions and freely acknowledges he deserves the wrath of God and
does not complain about it, but rather, thanks God for his mercy and grace in sparing
285
him. But the ungodly man, like Cain, complains about his just punishment, thinking that
he is righteous or that God is unrighteous for executing His wrath against him.
19c “Who hath resisted his will?” Or who could? Who would be able to? What wise
man would want to? Many want to and most try but it all ends in vain and in failure.
19d The Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops and ESV all use “who can resist his will” while
the Geneva and King James have “who has resisted his will”. Of course, no one is able
to resist the will of God but the Geneva and King James are more accurate in asking if
there has ever been a time, historically, that someone, including Pharaoh, has been
able to resist the will of God. The obvious answer is no. The Geneva and King James
reading is broader in implying this question that has a negative answer,
***************************************************************************************************
9:20 Nay but, O man, who arta-present thou that repliest againstpresent middle/passive participle
God?b Shall the thing formed sayfuture to him that formedaorist active participle it, Why hast
thou madeaorist me thus?c
20a Emphatic.
20b “who art thou that repliest against God? The other translations rendering of
“disputest” is stronger than the Geneva’s “pleadest”. The ESV’s “answer back” is
acceptable here.
The tone of Paul’s question is : “What are you doing asking such questions? You
think God was unfair to Pharaoh? God owed him nothing and would have been
righteous to give Pharaoh no chance at all and to let him go to hell. God was righteous
in His dealings despite what some pea-brained man thinks or imagines. No doubt some
objected and though God was unfair. Paul answers "Who art thou that repliest against
God?" God can do as He very well pleases with His creation.” Paul’s attitude here is
not that he is dealing with an honest inquirer or seeker who is having difficulty
understanding this, but rather to a smart-aleck critic who is using these doctrines and
examples as an excuse not to be saved or submit to God. You deal with different
groups in different ways. With an honest seeker, you are patient and explain
everything. To the big-mouth critic, you ream him out. Cavilers are to be reprehended
rather than reasoned with. But man must have a human answer to such questions and
Paul’s answer, while correct, will probably not satisfy the critics. Even Christians are
bound to have difficult with it unless they are completely submitted to the Holy Spirit
while considering these matters.
20c “Why hast thou made me thus?” Isaiah 29:16.
***************************************************************************************************
9:21 Hathpresent not the pottera power over the clay,b of the same lump to makeaorist
active infinitive
one vessel unto honor,c and another unto dishonor?d-e
286
21a For “God as potter”, refer to Psalm 2:9; Isaiah 29:16; 41:25; 45:9; 64:8 and
Jeremiah 18:1-6.
21b Paul gives the example of a potter- cannot he do what we wants with his pottery?
Does the pottery talk back to the potter? So then why are you back-talking God?
21c “honor” For honorable purposes.
21d “dishonor” For meaner (less valuable), dishonorable or reprobate purposes.
21e Paul does not expressly state here that God makes vessels of dishonor, only that
He has the right to as the Master Potter. He can if He wants but that does not mean He
must or He has- only that He may. Paul then clearly introduces a “what if?” scenario in
verse 22.
**************************************************************************************************
9:22a What ifb God, willingpresent active participle to shewaorist middle infinitive his wrath, and to
make his power known,aorist active infinitive enduredaorist with much longsufferingc the
vessels of wrath fittedperfect passive participle to destruction:d-e-f-g
22a This passage is usually used as a proof-text for the Calvinist doctrine of
reprobation. In this system, reprobation is viewed as a “negative election” or “double
predestination”, or election to hell. The Canons of Dort (1618-1619), which are
accepted by most Calvinists, defines this teaching as:
Moreover, Holy Scripture most especially highlights this eternal and undeserved grace
of our election and brings it out more clearly for us, in that it further bears witness that
not all people have been chosen but that some have not been chosen or have been
passed by in God's eternal election-- those, that is, concerning whom God, on the basis
of his entirely free, most just, irreproachable, and unchangeable good pleasure, made
the following decision: to leave them in the common misery into which, by their own
fault, they have plunged themselves; not to grant them saving faith and the grace of
conversion; but finally to condemn and eternally punish them (having been left in their
own ways and under his just judgment), not only for their unbelief but also for all their
other sins, in order to display his justice. And this is the decision of reprobation, which
does not at all make God the author of sin, but rather its fearful, irreproachable, just
judge and avenger. (Chapter 1, Article 15)
But if such a doctrine were true, it would make God the author of sin, as He would have
created men for no other reason to be damned and to sin, with no hope of salvation. He
would then have created worthless souls, with no value or desire, who can never be
saved under any circumstance. This makes a man, who goes to hell, not there because
of his own sin, but because God created him to go to hell and desired him to go to hell.
Naturally, such a teaching will make most Calvinists squeamish and many do not want
to deal with the ultimate end of so-called “negative election” but that is what holding to
287
the Calvinistic view of election must logically lead, that God hates some men because
He simply chose to hate them in passing them by and never offering them salvation and
making it impossible for them to be saved. What a monstrous doctrine! The Scripture
is clear that if a man is reprobate, he reprobated himself due to his rejection of the
revelation made available to him and would not respond to the dealings of God with him
relating to salvation. It is also Scriptural to say that if a man goes to hell, he goes to hell
for his own sin, not because of any divine decree of reprobation. It is not God’s fault
that the man is in hell. That damned man has no one to blame but himself for his
condemnation. We do see a Book of Life in Scripture but we are never introduced to
any “Book of Reprobation”.
Of course, this has nothing to do with God “giving up” on an unsaved man, after
repeated attempts to deal with him about salvation. God will not always strive and there
is a time when God will stop dealing with an unrepentant sinner, and will leave him
alone. This has nothing to do with reprobation, as God desired that person’s salvation,
as shown by the fact that He dealt with the sinner about his need of salvation in the first
place. This is an example of a sinner “reprobating himself” in his willful rejection of the
Gospel, despite God’s dealings with him. The unrepentant and unresponsive sinner
bears his own condemnation, in spite of the desires and dealings of God to the contrary.
22b Notice the what if- a hypothetical situation and a rhetorical question. Paul does
not say that God made vessels fitted for wrath (or the Calvinist idea of reprobation), but
Paul, to advance his point, sets for a what if? question to stimulate thinking. The
Calvinist notion of reprobation falls under Paul’s ”what if” scenario. Paul is not saying
that God has or will make men as vessels fitted for destruction, but to advance his point,
he is simply saying “What if God did so....?”
“What if?” Here’s a question for Calvinist to consider- “What if God didn’t?”
What then?
22c The patience and longsuffering of God in dealing with these sinners like Pharaoh is
absolutely astounding. God does not hurl down lightening bolts at the first expression of
rebellion or disobedience but patiently works, witnesses and even pleads with the sinner
until a certain point where God “gives him up”. But it is clear to see that God certainly
has more patience with His enemies that we do with ours.
22d “vessels fitted to destruction” This is the condition of the unsaved man, but Paul
does not say here that God created them this way. as if to support the unscriptural idea
of reprobation to damnation, in a Calvinistic sense. Paul simply says they are “vessels
fitted to destruction” but he does not mention how they got that way. We know, from
other passages, that sinners got this way because of their own rejection of Christ, so
they fitted themselves for their own destruction. But the “vessels of mercy” in 9:23
were indeed prepared beforehand by God. He decrees great things for men
beforehand but He does not prepare their condemnation in a like manner.
22e C. H. Mackintosh, the “Plymouth” Brethren writer, made an interesting observation:
“It is deeply interesting to mark the way in which Scripture guards against the repulsive
288
doctrine of reprobation. Look, for example, at Matthew 25:34. Here, the King, in
addressing those on His right hand, says, "Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the
kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world."’ Contrast with this the
address to those on His left hand (v.41): ‘Depart from Me ye cursed [He does not say 'of
My Father'] into everlasting fire, prepared [not for you, but] for the devil and his
angels." So also, in Romans 9. In speaking of the "vessels of wrath," it says "fitted to
destruction"--fitted not by God surely, but by themselves. On the other hand, when
speaking of the "vessels of mercy," it says, "which He had established; the repulsive
error of reprobation, sedulously avoided (The Mackintosh Treasury, p. 606 footnote). If
reprobation was a truth, then the lake of fire would have been prepared for the
reprobate, as well as for the devil and his angels, but Jesus never says that. Hell had to
be enlarged for unsaved men (Isaiah 5:14) but it was never prepared for them.
22f Ethelbert Bullinger (The Companion Bible, page 1681) asks if the “vessels fitted to
destruction”, instead of dealing with reprobation might actually deal with the type of
bodies the unsaved will have when they go into hell. See Mark 9:44,46,48,49
regarding “their worm” of the damned who go to hell for some insight on this.
22g The Tyndale and Coverdale use “damnation”.
*************************************************************************************************
9:23a And that he might make knownaorist active subjunctive the riches of his glory on the
vessels of mercy,b which he had afore preparedaorist unto glory,
23a We are still working under the hypothetical situation of the “what if...?” of 9:22.
23b “vessels of mercy” People whom God intends to show his mercy to and
demonstrate His mercy upon. Every saint of God could appreciate this term!
***************************************************************************************************
9:24 Even us,a whom he hath called,aorist not of the Jews only, but also of the
Gentiles?
24a Who is the us- Jews or Gentiles? I tend to think Paul is referring to saved Gentiles
here.
****************************************************************************************************
9:25a As he saithpresent also in Osee,b I will callfuture them my people, which were not
my people;c and her beloved,perfect passive participle which was not beloved.d-perfect passive
participle
25a Verses 25 and 26 are quotes from Hosea 1:9,10; 2:23.
25b “Osee” Hosea. This verse quotes Hosea 2:23.
289
25c “my people” God has a people and naturally, everyone else are not His people.
In the context, “my people” is Israel. By larger application, this would include any bornagain believer. This means (in a New Testament context) that no Muslim, Hindu,
humanist, atheist…anyone who is not born again by the Spirit of God, is not part of the
people of God.
25d God put Israel away (divorced) due to her unfaithfulness, yet later redeemed her.
God did not have to yet did through His grace. Hosea's dealings with Gomer in Hosea
1-3 are a picture of God's dealings with apostate and backslidden Israel. Hosea
married a prostitute by God's command. Gomer was faithful for a time but later relapsed
into her sin. Hosea divorced her yet he redeemer her later because he loved her.
Hosea did not need to redeem Gomer yet did. The same was true with Israel and God.
***************************************************************************************************
9:26 And it shall come to pass,future that in the place where it was saidaorist passive
unto them, Yea are not my people; there shall they be calledfuture passive the childrenb
of the livingpresent active participle God.c
26a Emphatic.
26b The other translations all use “children” but the ESV has “sons”.
26c Hosea 1:10.
*************************************************************************************************
9:27 Esaiasa also criethpresent concerning Israel, Though the number of the children
of Israel bepresent as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:b-passive
27a “Esaias” Isaiah.
27b “a remnant shall be saved” Millions of unsaved Jews will go into the Tribulation,
yet only a remnant would survive it to be saved at the Second Coming (Matthew 24:35,
Zechariah 13:8,9). All Jews who do survive the tribulation period (by “enduring to the
end- Matthew 24:13) will be “saved” when they see the Lord returning at the Second
Advent. There are about 20 million Jews in the earth today, yet despite that
healthy number, only a remnant of them will survive the tribulation and make it to the
millennium, due to the persecutions of the Antichrist. Also see Isaiah 10:22.
The “remnant” mentioned here is one of the verses that deal with what we like to
call “Remnant Theology”, where God delights in working with and through small groups
of faithful people rather than the disobedient or apostate crowds. The word “remnant” is
used about 91 times in the King James, showing that it is a major consideration in God’s
dealing with humanity, especially in these days leading up to the rapture and the
tribulation period, where there are relatively few faithful churches and Christians. The
word “remnant” usually has an Old Testament context but it can easily be applied to a
New Testament and a Tribulational application as well for there is obviously a remnant
290
today among the Church and there shall be a remnant of faithful Jews (and probably
believing Gentiles) during the Tribulation period.
*************************************************************************************************
9:28 For he will finishpresent active participle the work, and cut it shorta-present active participle in
righteousness:b because a short4932-perfect passive participle work will the Lord makefuture
upon the earth.c-d
28a “cut it short” or “bring to a speedy conclusion”. Matthew 24:22 and Mark 13:20
state that the days of the tribulation will be “shortened”, lest all fles on the earth would
be destroyed, so this could refer to the shortening of the time of the tribulation period to
7 years minus some period of days.
28b “in righteousness” is missing in most modern versions.
28c “a short work will the Lord make upon the earth” Israel got the second chance
after the Babylonian Captivity and it was taken away at the rejection of Jesus. God will
give Israel a third chance in the Tribulation which will not be squandered. The third time
is the charm for Israel. At this third chance, Israel will accept their Messiah and will
become God's people forever and that relationship will never be broken for eternity.
28d The Geneva Bible is just a mess in this verse, where it mentions “the summer” and
a “short count” instead of a “short work” in the earth. It correspondents to nothing that
the other translations have.
**************************************************************************************************
9:29a And as Esaiasb said before-perfect Except the Lord of Sabaothc-4519 had leftaorist
us a seed, we had beenaorist passive as Sodoma,d and been made likeaorist passive unto
Gomorrha.e
29a Paul then quotes Isaiah 1:9 again concerning the believing remnant of Israel that
would be saved. If it were not for this remnant, Israel would be destroyed as Sodom
and Gomorrha. Israel will be devastated in the Tribulation and only the believing
remnant will survive. Unless there was that remnant, Israel would be totally destroyed
in the Tribulation.
29b “Esaias” Isaiah.
29c "Lord of Sabaoth" is the same as Lord of Hosts (see 1 Samuel 1:3 [first mention,
“Lord of hosts”] and James 5:4 [“Lord of Sabaoth” used]). This means "The Lord of
Armies", a military title for God that also describes His all-encompassing sovereignty.
The Geneva and the ESV translate “Sabaoth” as
“Hosts”.
“Sabaoth” Strong’s #4519 sabawy sabaôth, of Hebrew origin Strong’s #6635
twabu in feminine plural); Lord of the armies of Israel, as those who are under the
291
leadership and protection of Jehovah maintain his cause in war
29d “Sodoma” Sodom. The Tyndale spells it as “Zodoma”.
29e Paul treats the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah as historical events, not allegory or
fable. Paul was a man who took his Old Testament seriously and literally.
**************************************************************************************************
84. Why The Gentiles Found What Israel Couldn’t 9:30-32
9:30 What shall we sayfuture then? That the Gentiles,a which followedpresent active
not after righteousness, have attainedaorist to righteousness, even the
righteousness which is of faith.b
participle
30a Coverdale has “Heathen”.
30b Righteousness that comes by faith and on the basis of faith.
***************************************************************************************************
9:31 But Israel, which followedpresent active participle after the law of righteousness, hath
not attainedaorist to the law of righteousness.a-b-c
31a The believing Gentiles of 9:30 and the unbelieving Jews of 9:31 were obviously
following different forms of righteousness, which lead to two very different spiritual
destinations! The Gentiles found the blessing but Israel found only judgment.
31b “which followed after the law of righteousness” By keeping the Law. They
were actively seeking the righteousness of God, but because of a bad heart and an
improper seeking, they never found it. They sought it in the wrong place (the law) and
sought it with a bad heart- a legalistic one.
31c The ESV omits the second use of “righteousness”.
****************************************************************************************************
9:32 Wherefore?a Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works
of the law.b For they stumbledc-aorist at that stumblingstone;d-e
32a Wherefore? Where lies their mistake? Being ignorant of God’s righteousness-of
his method of saving sinners by faith in Christ, Israel went about to establish their own
righteousness-their own method of obtaining everlasting salvation. They devised a plan
that God never approved. They attend not to the Abrahamic covenant, which is based
upon grace and faith; but they turned all their energies to the law of Moses. They
imagined that their supposed “obedience” to the law, mixed with their lineage as
children of Abraham, gave them a right to the blessings of the Messiah’s kingdom. But,
finding that the Gospel sets our special interest in God and the privileges of his Church
292
on a very different footing, they are offended, and refuse to come into it. Add to that the
fact that the hated Gentiles were also to be admitted on an equal footing with Israel into
these Gospel privileges lays the ground for a double offense on the part of Israel.
32b The Coverdale has the odd rendering “out of the deseruynge of workes”.
32c “stumbled” Strong’s #4350 proskoptw proskoptô, from prov pros (Strong’s
#4314) to, towards; and koptw koptô (Strong’s #2875) bewail, lament; to strike against,
of those who strike against a stone or other obstacle in the path, to stumble, to strike
one’s foot against a stone, to meet with some harm; to rush upon, beat against, to be
made to stumble by a thing, to be induced to sin
32d There are several stumblingstones for Israel:
1. Salvation by faith without the works of the law.
2. Gentile gospel privileges and the Jew/Gentile Church body.
These reasons are why the Gentiles found the righteousness which originally they did
not seek for yet the Jew never found it. The key is that the Gentiles found the
righteousness of God because they sought for it by faith while the Jew sought for it by
works of the law.
32e “stumblingblock” Strong’s #4348 proskomma proskomma; a stumbling block, an
obstacle in the way which if one strikes his foot against he stumbles or falls, that over
which a soul stumbles by which is caused to sin.
****************************************************************************************************
85. Christ the Stumblingstone 9:33
9:33 As it is written,a-perfect passive Behold, I laypresent in Sion a stumblingstoneb and
rock of offence:c and whosoever believeth-present active participle on himd shall not be
ashamed.e-f-future passive
33a “As it is written” see notes under 9:13.
33b God placed a stumblingstone in Israel- the Lord Jesus Christ (Isaiah 8:14). A Jew,
like any Gentile, must believe on Him in order to attain the righteousness which the Law
cannot deliver. The Jews, in their blindness and pride, refused to do that, so they did
not attain righteousness. The Gentiles did believe and attained righteousness. And
God won’t even allow us to enjoy our new house as much as we could.
“stumblingstone” Strong’s #4348 proskomma proskomma; a stumbling block,
an obstacle in the way which if one strikes his foot against he stumbles or falls, that over
which a soul stumbles by which is caused to sin.
33c Jesus is called a rock of offense because He is offensive and a scandal to the
Jewish mind. That rock that could be their spiritual foundation if they would only believe
will also crush them if they refused to believe. But the Jew is offended by Christ- born
293
of lowly parents under questionable circumstances, raised in a despised village, did not
receive a proper priestly education, companied with sinners and common people
instead of the rich and powerful of His day, and ultimately, was put to death as a
criminal, crucified between two thieves. And this man is supposed to be the Messiah of
Israel??? The Jews simply cannot accept it while suffering from the God-induced
spiritual blindness. This is why Jewish evangelism is so difficult today and why you see
few Jews converting to Christianity.
“offence” Strong’s #4625 skandalon skandalon; the movable stick or trigger of
a trap, a trap stick, any impediment placed in the way and causing one to stumble or
fall, (a stumbling block, occasion of stumbling), a rock which is a cause of stumbling,
any person or thing by which one is (entrapped) drawn into error or sin.
33d The Tyndale, Coverdale and Bishops all have “believe on him” while the Geneva,
King James and ESV have “believe in him”. It may seem like nitpicking, but we must
acknowledge the difference between believing on Christ and believing in Christ.
Believing “in” Him usually refers to faith that is involved in salvation while believing “on”
Christ would generally have a reference to the faith of the believer after salvation,
mainly for service and the Christian life. That is a faith that is a result of faith for
salvation and is a necessary first step before one can believe “on” Christ. It would also
have a reference to the security of the believer. If this is so, then the verse is not talking
about faith in relation to salvation, but a faith that flows from that salvation, believing on
Christ not only for salvation but for the Christian life as well. He who lives for Christ will
have nothing to regret either on his deathbed or at the judgment.
33e “whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.” Quoted from Isaiah 28:16,
where it has the same idea as “shall not make haste, shall not fell hastily.” He who is
not offended or scandalized by Christ will never be ashamed.
33f Coverdale and Bishops have the idea of being “confounded”.
294
Romans Chapter 10
Since ten is the number of the Gentiles, we would expect Romans 10 to deal with the
Gentiles, even in the middle of Paul’s discussion of Israel, especially starting at verse 12
to the end of the chapter. Look at the references in verses 19-21 especially, where Paul
discusses the “disobedient” and “gainsaying” people who are “not a people.”
**************************************************************************************************
86. Paul’s Burden For Israel 10:1
10:1 Brethren,a my heart's desire and prayer to Godb for Israelc is,present that they
might be saved.d-e-f-g-h
1a “Brethren” Gentile brethren in the Roman church, not necessarily Jewish brethren.
1b “my heart’s desire and prayer…” Such desires should always be transformed into
prayer.
1c Why does the ESV omit “Israel” and just use the pronoun?
1d “that they might be saved” This presupposes they are lost since they have
rejected Christ. This refutes the Two Covenant Theory taught by some Christian
Zionists in our day who claim that Gentiles are saved by faith but Israel is saved by
keeping the law and thus, Christians do not need to be evangelized for they are already
saved. The Roman Catholic Church and Billy Graham also believe this. But Paul did
not. He states Israel is lost and hell-bound and their unique status as God’s covenant
nation or their keeping of the law will not prevent their condemnation. They, like the
Gentiles, must be saved by faith in Christ without the works of the law. Thus, there is
only one salvation in this dispensation, not two. There is not a plan of salvation for
Israel and another one for the Jew. There is one plan of salvation for all men,
regardless if he is a Jew or a Gentile.
1e Just because Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles never changed or affected the
fact that he was also a Jew who carried a crushing burden for the salvation of his own
countrymen. Paul does not curse his persecutors, but rather prays for their salvation,
as a Christian should. If you can’t pray for your enemies and for those who curse you
and who despitefully use you (Matthew 5:44), then your “Christianity” isn’t worth much.
1f This prayer by Paul also shows that God is not finished with Israel. If God had
finished with Israel and had no further use for them in His plan, based on their rejection
of Christ during His first coming, then why this prayer? If the historicists,
postmillennialists, covenant theologians and preterists (and other groups that teach that
the Church replaced Israel) are correct, then such a prayer is improper. God has turned
from Israel to the Gentiles and the Church is now Israel. Israel has no use in God’s
295
program as a nation anymore so to pray that God would reverse Himself and return to
Israel would be a violation of that theological system. Of course, we would reject any
notion that the Church has replaced Israel. Many teach this today, including some
study Bibles as the Thompson Chain Reference Bible (look especially in the Psalms
and in Isaiah at the chapter headings and you’ll see the Church mentioned in sections
where the Church is not being dealt with). Israel is Israel and the Church is the Church
and they are two separate groups in God’s program. Israel is “in trouble” with the Lord
for their (multiple) rejection of the Kingdom and are “on the shelf” in this dispensation
where God is using the Church to extend His program. After the rapture, God returns to
Israel and brings them “off the shelf” and we return to a more Old Testament-type of
dispensation. In a dispendational system, it is still right and proper to pray for Israel and
for their salvation, in a very special way. Under a Covenant Theology system, it would
not be as proper to do so.
1g If the false doctrine of universalism were true, Paul would have re-worded this as
“realize they are saved”.
1h The Gentiles owe the Jews a spiritual debt that cannot be repaid, but how little
prayer or effort there is among the believing Gentiles for their salvation! “To the Jew
first” still shows God’s desire for the evangelization of His covenant people.
****************************************************************************************************
87. Israel’s Zeal 10:2
10:2 For I bearpresent them record that they havepresent a zeal of God,a-b but not
according to knowledge.c-d
2a “zeal of God” Zeal must not only be for God but also of God. Paul does not say
Israel had a zeal for God but a zeal of God. They were zealous at whatever religious
duty and work they did but it was more for their traditions and their religions than it was
for God Himself in their blindness. We must be very careful that we do not fall into the
same trap, mistaking our zeal for the church, the “Baptist Distinctives”, our fellowship,
our theological systems, etc., to be the same thing as a zeal for God.
A zeal without knowledge produces fanaticism; knowledge without zeal produces
dead formalism Thus, there are two great evils in the world: zeal without knowledge and
knowledge without zeal. Zeal for God has become a rare quality in our land. You see
plenty of zeal where politics are concerned. Fashion, art, sports and literature—each
one evokes zeal of a certain kind, but we are not overdone with those who are zealous
in the matter of the faith. Yet we will call such zealous believers fanatics while lauding
the man who is zealous for football or politics or making money.
Simply because someone may be busy for God and is active in divine work does
not mean that this person is saved. Work is not a certain fruit of salvation, as any
unsaved man can knock on doors or pass out tracts…or preach! Their zeal may not
296
necessarily be according to righteousness but rather, to the flesh. Israel was certainly
zealous for their religion, but they were in spiritual blindness and were not saved.
2b The Tyndale has “a fervent mind”. The other translations all use “zeal”.
2c “but not according to knowledge” Good intentions and religious knowledge will
not save if apart from saving faith in Christ. Israel was very zealous for the law (Acts
21:20) but without saving faith in Christ, such zeal is vain. Even today, religious Jews
are among the most zealous for their faith that you will find anywhere. Get one
converted to the gospel and he’ll do the work of ten Gentiles. Just see how much work
the 144,000 in Revelation 7 will get done within the span of about 3 years in the
tribulation period.
2d Israel had a desire to serve God but they were doing so in ignorance:
1. Ignorance of the work of Jesus Christ
2. Ignorance of salvation by grace apart from the law
3. Ignorance of God's plan for the Church and for the Gentiles
****************************************************************************************************
88. The Ignorance of Israel 10:3
10:3a For they being ignorantpresent active participle of God's righteousness, and going
aboutpresent active participle to establishaorist infinitive their own righteousness,b-c have not
submitted themselvesd-aorist passive unto the righteousness of God.e
3a Israel was God's covenant people (and still are), with the Scriptures and the
prophets, and yet they were still ignorant about how to obtain the righteousness of God.
This is because their legalism, formalism and rejection of the Scripture and the
message of the prophets had blinded their minds so that they could not understand the
correct way to attain it.
3b “establish their own righteousness” This is understandable and it is an
undeniable facet of fallen human nature. This is what human religion is about- allowing
the sinner to establish his own righteousness through works but without God. Israel
desired the righteousness of God, yet in their self-induced blindness, they could not
understand how to attain it, so they had to do the only thing anyone in that situation
could do- go about to establish their own righteousness and create a plan of salvation
that somehow fit into their misunderstandings of the righteousness of God. This selfestablished righteousness was nothing more than legalism, and the Jews are not the
only ones guilty of it, as Christian Gentiles do it all the time too.
Man is very good at justifying himself and establishing his own form or
righteousness. Even Christians can excel at this. No one wants to think himself a
heathen or a loser or a failure in spiritual things so men are continually justifying their
sins, apologizing for their shortcomings and wallowing in their self-induced ignorance.
297
Good luck finding a man who will confess that he is a sinner without reservation or
hesitation! In 1993-1994, I pastored in Mebane, North Carolina, a typical southern town
that was totally dominated by all forms of Southern religion, tradition and “churchianity”.
In my year in that town, I think I met one lady who did not tell me she was a Christian,
but she was a Jehovah Witness. She may have been the most honest sinner in that
town! Everyone will proclaim and testify to his own goodness, even a murderer or a
rapist will not hesitate to do this. But a faithful man, who can find?
3c The ESV omits the second use of “righteousness”.
3d “not submitted themselves” A willful, deliberate rejection of truth is implied here.
What Israel did they did not do ignorantly but they did knowing that they had rejected
God’s way. Their blindness was their own fault due to their deliberate rejection of the
Scripture and the prophets and their replacement of them with traditionalism and
formalism.
3e This is the problem with unsaved men- they pit their own righteousness against the
righteousness of God and they will not accept the righteousness of God on their behalf
for justification because they think they don’t need it. This is something both Jew and
Gentile are guilty of. He thinks he is good enough to be justified and get to heaven
without God, His religion, his morality, his self-righteousness are sufficient (in his mind)
to “earn” his way into heaven to the point where he does not need any of the redemptive
work of Christ on the cross on his behalf. He thinks he is okay where God says he is
filthy, rotten, dirty and worthless without His Son. So we have this sinner calling God a
liar and despising the blood of Christ shed on his behalf. The question that cuts to the
heart of this matter is “If you can earn it, then why did He die?”
***************************************************************************************************
89. Christ- The End of the Law 10:4
10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousnessa-b-c to every one that
believeth.d-e-f-present active participle
4a Christ is the goal, or the end, of the law, as it points to Him. To fail to see Christ in
the law is to suffer from spiritual blindness. It points to Him as He is the fulfillment of the
law, something He did on the cross as He not only perfectly kept the law but also took
its punishments in His own body vicariously. Would to God that Seventh Day
Adventists and other modern Galatians would grasp this fact that the Law is fulfilled,
completed and no longer has any spiritual bearing on Christians,
4b It can be said that Christ is the end of the Law for them that believe in the same way
that George Washington was the end of British Law over America after the
Revolutionary War.
298
4c The Tyndale basically defines “righteousness” with “justify all that believe”.
4d Again, faith is the foundation for righteousness, not law or law-keeping or being
water baptized.
4e “The Law cannot curse a Believer, it does not know how to do it. It blesses him, yes,
and he shall be blessed, for as the Law demands righteousness and looks at the
Believer in Christ—and sees that Jesus has given him all the righteousness it
demands—the Law is bound to pronounce him blessed. “Blessed is he whose
transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord
imputes not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.” Oh, the joy of being
redeemed from the curse of the Law by Christ, who was “made a curse for us,” as it is
written, “Cursed is everyone that hangs on a tree (Charles Spurgeon, “Christ the End of
the Law”, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, volume 22, sermon 1325).”
4f “Righteousness springs out of the finished work of Christ (verses 3, 4), and there can
be no 'finished' work while man is endeavoring to be saved by law, for this would be
virtually to undo what Christ has done (A.C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible).”
****************************************************************************************************
90. The Righteousness of the Law 10:5
10:5a For Moses describethpresent the righteousness which is of the law, That the
man which doethaorist active participle those things shall livefuture middle by them.b
5a Quoted from Leviticus 18:5. If a man could keep the law perfectly, then he would
live in it and by it. But since it is impossible for a sinner to keep the law perfectly (since
no man ever has- what about your sins before you decided to start keeping the law?),
no man can live in the law or by it, unless he desires to condemn himself.
5b “the man which doeth those things shall live by them.” A good summary of the
law- “do and live.” The problem is that no man do the law and thus, no man can live by
the law without being condemned by that law. The Old Testament saint did not have
the indwelling Holy Spirit, nor did he have the righteousness of Christ imputed to him
yet, as Christian do. He then has to maintain his relationship and obedience to the law
if he does, he will live in them. They will not serve for his justification but they will make
his relationship to God possible.
****************************************************************************************************
91. The Righteousness of Faith 10:6-8
10:6 But the righteousnessa which is of faith speakethpresent on this wise, Sayaorist
not in thine heart,b Who shall ascendfuture middle into heaven?c (that
is,present to bring Christ downaorist from above:)d
subjunctive imperative
299
6a There are two kinds of righteousness:
1. By law- which on God has and only Christ could attain via His perfect life
2. By faith- the only way for the sinner to receive the imputed righteousness by
Christ since it is impossible for him to obtain it by law
6b “Say not in thine heart” As if to say that salvation was unattainable.
6c It is not necessary to literally search to the ends of the universe to find the
righteousness of God- it is right in front of you. Yet the natural man, in his blindness
and/or rejection of the imputed righteousness of God by faith, misses it and seeks
heaven and earth for that right is practically right in front of him.
6d “to bring Christ down from above” It is not necessary to go back into heaven and
bring Christ down again (in the Roman Catholic mass, where the Church of Rome drags
Christ out of heaven daily and re-nails Him to the cross) or go into the deep and bring
Him back again from the dead.
****************************************************************************************************
10:7 Or, Who shall descendfuture middle into the deep?a (that is,present to bring up
Christ againaorist from the dead.)
7a You need not ascend to heaven to find this salvation, nor descend into hell either.
No doubt some in Paul’s days were asking such questions, but Paul shoots it down
quickly, saying that even if you could bring Christ back from the dead (discounting the
resurrection), it would not be necessary.
“deep” Strong’s #12 abussov abussos; from a a (Strong’s #1) a negative
particle, and a variation of buyov buthos (Strong’s #1037) bottom or depth of the sea;
bottomless, unbounded, the abyss, the pit, the bottomless pit. The traditional
translations all use “deep” while the ESV uses “Abyss”.
***************************************************************************************************
10:8a But what saithpresent it?b The wordc ispresent nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and
in thy heart: that is,present the wordc of faith, which we preach;d-present
8a This verse quotes Deuteronomy 30:11-14.
8b “what saith it?” What saith the Scripture? The gospel of salvation is not something
that must be searched or hunted for, but is made plain and simple, and easy to obey for
those who wish to do so.
8c The gospel is the word of Faith since it relies on faith and is founded upon faith, not
works or law. This is the only appearance of this phrase in Scripture.
There are groups of Pentecostal heretics, who hold to the “creative word”
theology have hijacked this phrase word of faith. They teach that you can create
300
whatever you want by speaking it, and that we literally have the creative spoken-word
power of God at our disposal. “Name it and claim it”- or “blab it and grab it”. This is
“prosperity theology” where you can write out your own ticked with God by declaring
something to be true. This then would compel God to create it for you. Naturally, the
Scripture is against such foolishness. But it upsets the Bible believer that such heretics
would steal a good Bible phrase and slap in on their heresy. One basis for this position
is the use of “rhema” instead of “logos” in this verse, which the prosperity preachers
think means something special.
8d “which we preach” The true Bible preacher preaches faith, not works or law, for
salvation. The ESV doesn’t seem to like the “preach” here and uses “proclaim” instead.
That is another unnecessary change.
9a This is one of the classical evangelistic verses in the Bible. Notice how simply the
plan of salvation is presented here, that even a child can understand it, although it may
confound some of the learned Th.D.’s there who are offended by its simplicity.
My oldest son Patrick was saved as I preached from the verse on the evening of
Sunday, September 29, 2002 at Grace Baptist Church in Smyrna, Delaware. This will
make this verse always special to me, and hopefully, him.
****************************************************************************************************
There is an interesting chain of construction in 10:9-17 (James Dunn, Word Biblical
Commentary: volume 38B, Romans 9-16, page 619):
Statement
Scripture
9,10
11
12
13
14,15a
15b
16a
16b
Conclusion 17
***********************************************************************************************
92. The Plan of Salvation 10:9-11
10:9a That if thou shalt confessaorist subjunctive with thy mouthb-c-d the Lorde Jesus,f
and shalt believeaorist subjunctive in thine heart that God hath raisedaorist him from the
dead,g thou shalt be saved.h-future passive
9b “confess with thy mouth” But a mere mouth profession without heart belief will
not bring salvation. Such a confession would be a lie. We must notice the conjunction
“and” which ties the “confess with thy mouth” to “believe in thine heart”. Both the
confession and the belief must go together if there is to be a genuine salvation. A heart
salvation experience will result in some for of public, verbal witness and testimony of the
great things Christ has done for the soul. How could one be saved, have his sins
forgiven, be made a child of God and receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and be
301
silent about it? Paul expects that if there is heart belief, a verbal and public witness will
follow.
9c “Now some of you draw back from the thought of making a profession. “No,” you
say, “we will believe and be secret Christians.” Hear you this, then—“If any man be
ashamed of Me and of My Words in this generation, of him will I be ashamed, when I
shall come in the glory of My Father, with all His holy angels.” I will repeat a truism. Not
one of you in your lives ever knew a secret Christian and I will prove it to you. If you
knew a man to be a Christian, it could not be a secret. For if it had been a secret how
came you to know it? Then, as you never knew a secret Christian, you are not justified
in believing there is such a one. You must come out and make a profession.
“What would Her Majesty think of her soldiers, if they should swear they were
loyal and true, and were to say—“Your Majesty, we prefer not to wear these
regimentals. Let us wear the dress of civilians! We are right honest men and upright.
But we do not care to stand in your ranks, acknowledged as your soldiers. We had
rather slink into the enemy’s camp and into your camps, too, and not wear anything that
would mark us as being your soldiers!”
“Ah, some of you do the same with Christ. You are going to be secret Christians,
are you and slink into the devil’s camp and into Christ’s camp, but acknowledged by
none? Well, you must take the risk of it, if you will be so. But I should not like to risk it. It
is a solemn threat—“of him will I be ashamed when I come in the glory of My Father and
all His holy angels with Me”! It is a solemn thing, I say, when Christ says, “Except a man
take up his cross and follow Me, he cannot be My disciple (Charles Spurgeon, “A
Simple Sermon for Seeking Souls”, New Park Street Pulpit, volume 3, Sermon 140).”
9d This public confession could also take the form of a public prayer at salvation, where
the person publicly repents of his sins and asks Christ to save him. There is nothing
wrong with such a verbal prayer but it is not prayer itself that saves, for nowhere in
Scripture are we told that we much pray in order to be saved. To pray a prayer like this
means that you are already saved, else you would not make such a prayer. It is not the
prayer that saves, but the faith that motivates that prayer. It is so very vital to see this
as there are far too many professing Christians who Aprayed a prayer@ or who repeated
a prayer on a tract or who repeated what some soul-winner told him to say, and then
think that they are saved because they prayed. Prayer would be a work and we cannot
be saved by works. This is why we must be very careful when dealing with a sinner that
we do not get him to “repeat after us” or mouth some written prayer. We dare not give
him a false assurance, that he would say “I am saved because I prayed a prayer” when
he is to be saved by faith and belief. Also beware of using tracts that contain a text of
some “prayer of salvation” for they lead to the same error. But what about the “sinner’s
prayer” of Luke 18:13? Is that not a “prayer for salvation?” No, for 1) that brief prayer is
never called “the sinner’s prayer” in Scripture, and 2) nothing is made about confessing
Christ in that brief prayer. All that publican was doing was asking for mercy. But the
reason he went down to his house justified was because of the heart work that
302
preceded and motivated that prayer. It was not that very brief prayer that saved him,
but the faith that motivated him to pray it was what saved him.
9e This verse promotes ALordship Salvation@ (so-called) for we are told not to believe
merely on “Jesus” but on the “Lord” Jesus, thus acknowledging his lordship and deity.
And his confession must involve more than a mere head, or intellectual belief in the
historical personal and representation of Christ, for even the devils believe that but that
does not save them (James 2:19). It must be a confession of faith, based on a saving
faith that has already been exercised in the heart. But there must be at least some
recognition and acknowledgment of the lordship of Christ in salvation, else, why is the
sinner calling upon Him in the first place? Just for salvation? Not for forgiveness and
acknowledgment that Christ is God and should be recognized are such? Naturally, the
hyper-evangelists hate this as it would reduce the numbers of their converts if they
demanded something more than a simple “repeat this prayer after me” or “raise your
hand”. Anything that might reduce the number of professions is bad in their view, no
matter how Biblical it might be.
9f The ESV blunders badly by changing “the Lord Jesus” to “Jesus is Lord”. The ESV
has the convert believing merely on “Jesus” who is Lord instead of the “Lord Jesus”.
Jesus is Lord but that would leave open the possibility of other “Lords” that one could
also believe on.
9g “God hath raised Him from the dead” If a man denies the resurrection, he cannot
be saved, despite and profession or confession he might make. A belief in the historical
fact of the resurrection of Christ is required for salvation.
9h Notice two things not mentioned for salvation here:
1. Prayer. We are never told to pray to be saved. Confession could involve
prayer, but after the saving belief has been exercised. Thus, those who are continually
telling sinners to ”pray this prayer” or “pray after me” or “just say the Sinner’s Prayer”
are not practicing Biblical evangelism.
2. Water baptism. Nothing is said about baptism in one of the greatest verses
regarding salvation and it was not that Paul “forgot” to mention it. Paul never made
water baptism a condition for salvation in any of his writings.
Fulfilling two conditional clauses (if you confess and if you believe) results in a
declarative result (you will be saved).
****************************************************************************************************
10:10 For with the hearta man believethb-present passive unto righteousness; and with
the mouth confessionc is maded-present passive unto salvation.
10a “with the heart” Salvation is a heart matter more than a head matter.
303
10b “believeth…confession is made” Why are these two verbs in the passive? We
would expect them to be active, as we are the ones who are actively believing and
confessing. But the passives suggest that someone else is believing and confessing for
us and through us, probably through the imputed faith of Jesus Christ that is imputed to
us at salvation. Remember, we are not saved through our faith, nor do we live through
our faith, but rather, through the faith of Jesus Christ (Galatians 2:20).
10c “confession” To agree with someone or to speak the same thing as someone. In
this context, it is agreeing with the Scriptural revelation of Jesus Christ, as laid out by
the Father.
Notice that believing comes before confessing. You first believe, then you
confess. This “confession” is not a legalistic requirement for salvation, but is a natural
consequence and act that follows salvation. Once you have believed and accepted
Christ, you will naturally confess Him.
You have belief first, then salvation, then confession. Among its many errors,
Calvinism gets the order of salvation wrong, in trying to put the salvation (or rather, the
“sovereign election of God” [their definition]) before the belief and confession! They
maintain that a dead sinner cannot exercise saving faith, so God must first save the
sinner (without the sinner knowing about it or even asking for it!) and then the sinner will
be able to believe. But Paul clearly puts the act of believing first in salvation, showing
that Paul was no Calvinist.
10d “confession is made” Here is where prayer could be invoked in salvation, but
again, it comes after the salvation and new birth experience has taken place through the
exercise of saving faith. You do not pray to get saved but you pray because you have
already been saved.
****************************************************************************************************
10:11a For the scripture saith,present Whosoever believethb-present active participle on himc
shall not be ashamed.d-e-future passive
11a Yet another anti-Calvinist verse (one of so many in Paul’s writings! It is obviouys
that Paul would never have followed John Calvin or his system three feet.). Paul says
“Whosoever...” and leaves it at that, not “whosoever of the elect who is sovereignly
elected...” Thus, we hold to the universal offer of the gospel and the universal
application thereof for all mankind, and utterly reject any attempt to limit the extent or
scope of the gospel offer. The extent of this offer must be interpreted in the broadest
terms possible. What if a “reprobate” called out to God for salvation? Would God save
him. even though he was not elect?
11b “believeth” Not “worketh”, overthrowing all works-based salvation systems.
304
11c “on Him” On Christ and no one else, as there is no other name on which we must
believe on in order to be saved (Acts 4:12). Believing on any other name, any pope,
preacher, prelate or person, is a sure ticket to condemnation.
11d “shall not be ashamed” Isaiah 49:23.
11e “shall not be ashamed” The passive indicates that we do not shame ourselves by
our belief and confession, but that someone else attempts to make us ashamed of it
and by it. The Coverdale and Bishops both use “confounded”.
****************************************************************************************************
93. There Is No Difference Between Jew and Gentile 10:12,13
10:12 For there ispresent no difference between the Jew and the Greek:a-b for the
same Lordc over all is richpresent active participle unto all that call uponpresent middle/passive
participle
him.
12a “there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek” This completely
overthrows the ”Two Covenant Theory” that some Evangelicals and Charismatics hold
to, including Billy Graham (in his belief that Jews do not need to be “born again” as
Gentiles do), John Hagee (and his Christian Zionism, although he publicly denies
holding to the “Two Covenant Theory”), Billy Graham (who has shifted into Universalism
at the latter end of his ministry) and the Roman Catholic Church (in believing that their
Church is spiritual Israel). This heresy teaches that Jews do not need to be saved as
Gentiles need to be. The Jew is practically already saved because he is a Jew, has the
law and the covenants. Gentiles need to be saved by faith but not Jews. Therefore,
there is no need for evangelization to the Jews. But this is heresy. A Jew who dies
without faith in Christ will go to hell just as quickly as will a Gentile who dies without
saving faith. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile in this regard- both must
be saved the same way, by the same gospel. There is only one plan of salvation in this
age, not two, and that plan of salvation is the same for all men, Jews or Gentiles.
12b The Tyndale and Coverdale both use “Gentile”.
12c “the same Lord” in the sense that there is only one Lord over both the Jews and
Gentiles, not two Lords. Since there is only one Lord, there is only one plan of salvation
for both groups.
****************************************************************************************************
10:13a For whosoeverb shall callc uponaorist subjunctive middle the name of the Lordd shall
be saved.e-f-g-future passive
13a This is the summary of the doctrine of salvation, which involves believing and
calling. How simple it is! Even a child can understand it and one need not be educated
305
to understand it or do it. But such a spiritual simplicity invites many corruptions and
perversions. How many “plans of salvation” (so-called) are floating around out there!
They are too many to list but we know that the false outnumbers the good and it can be
confusing and discouraging to dig through the rubbish of human religion to find the
diamond of the truth. We could just briefly list such false gospels as including, but not
being limited to:
1. Salvation by works
2. Salvation by church membership
3. Salvation by morality
4. Denial of any need of salvation, such as a denial of any kind of afterlife
5. Universalism, that all men will eventually be saved
All versions of false gospels can be classified under one, or more, of these categories.
There are only a few versions of it but an infinite number of variations.
13b “whosoever” This is yet another refutation of the Calvinist error of limited
atonement, just as in 10:11. Paul does not say “whosoever of the elect” but
“whosoever”, and that includes “whosoever” of all mankind. “Whosever” simply doesn’t
mean “all kinds of men” but “all men”.
13c “shall call” Here is where the prayer element of salvation could (but not
necessarily) be brought in. But again, we emphasize that you would not call upon the
name of the Lord for salvation unless you were believing first. The calling (in whatever
form it takes) is a result of saving faith, not the cause of it. It may take the form of a
prayer or it may not, but it does involve asking God to save. It may be a literal, verbal,
loud “crying out” or it may be a quiet and secret “crying” from the heart.
13d “upon the name of the Lord” You must call upon the one, true God to be saved,
not just AGod@ or any god, but rather, Jehovah, the God of Israel, as revealed by the
Bible. Only calling upon His name may one be saved. Calling on the false “god” of the
Muslims “Allah” or one of the Hindu or New Age “gods” or secular gods like “science
(falsely so-called) or any manifestation of humanism or the occult cannot save, since
those are all false gods. And “lordship salvation” rears its ugly head again, as we must
call upon the name of the “Lord”, not just upon the name of Jesus. There must be an
acknowledgment of the Lordship of Christ in order to be saved.
13e “shall be saved” An absolute promise with no exceptions. Saved from what?
Hell, the lake of fire, condemnation and judgment of your sins, eternal separation from
God, and related results from dying without saving faith.
13f “shall be saved” A quote from Joel 2:32 but with a bit of difference. Old
Testament "salvation" had a context of deliverance from enemies while New Testament
"salvation" has a spiritual meaning.
306
13g “shall be saved” Notice the passive voice of the Greek verb. We do not save
ourselves but someone else saves us, and that someone else is not the “soulwinner”
who “leads us to Christ” but rather, that someone else is God and God alone, who
saves the soul.
****************************************************************************************************
94. The Divine Need of a Preacher 10:14,15
10:14a How then shall they call onfuture middle him in whom they have not
believed?aorist and how shall they believe infuture him of whom they have not
heard?b-aorist and how shall they hearfuture without a preacher?c-d
14a Since Christ died for all that all may be saved, this good news of the gospel thus
must also be proclaimed to all. And what an honor God gives to preachers and the
gospel they preach here! Even if the preacher is weak, despised and halting in his
presentation, God will still honor that Word if it is faithfully preached.
No one is saved in a vacuum, without or apart from the word of God. To believe,
they must hear. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Thus, the
word must be transmitted to them somehow, either in a written or verbal form.
14b “how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?” This is an
obvious question. How can you believe on someone of whom you are totally ignorant?
Unless someone tells them of the problem and the cure and the Savior, how will they
know how to respond? The Greek construction of the question assumes an
impossibility- they can’t.
14c “and how shall they hear without a preacher?” This shows the need of a
preacher. The preacher is the channel of divine communication and revelation to the
sinner. God does use the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe and He
uses the weakest instrumentalities in creation to preach that Word- human beings.
Angels do not preach and creation itself can preach in a limited manner (Psalm 19) but
God still uses redeemed men and women to make known His Word. This preacher can
be either a man or even a “paper preacher” such as the Scripture itself (as it can
preach- Romans 9:17; Galatians 3:8) or a gospel tract, which can preach the gospel as
effectively as a man can.
14d What is it with the ESV and preaching or preachers? Instead of “preacher”, the
ESV uses “someone preaching”. What is wrong with preachers? There is no
justification for this change. The ESV does handle verse 15 better, though.
***************************************************************************************************
10:15 And how shall they preach,future except they be sent?a-aorist subjunctive passive as it
is written,b-perfect passive How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the
307
gospelpresent middle/passive participle of peace,c-d and bring glad tidingspresent middle/passive participle
of good things!e-f
15a The preacher is sent out by another, usually, the local church in which he is a
member. No preacher calls himself, nor does he ordain himself or send himself out.
God does it and that call and ordination are confirmed by Spirit-filled men and the local
church. Beware of a self-called and a self-sent man who acknowledges no authority but
himself and who will submit to no authority other than his own. That man is a rebel at
heart and cannot be trusted with spiritual things.
15b “as it is written” Perfect tense- it has been written and remains written, not to be
changed or altered. It is a completed action with continuous results or the continuance
of an act completed in the past. The components are always a past action and
continuous results. References to the Scriptures like this are often presented in the
perfect tense. "The just shall live by faith" is one of those unalterable truths of
Christianity. This perfect tense in reference to New Testament references to Old
Testament texts is used 62 times in the New Testament, 16 times in Romans (1:17;
2:24; 3:4,10; 4:17; 8:36; 9:13,33; 10:15; 11:8,26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3,9,21). This usage
of the perfect is a strong argument for the verbal and plenary preservation of the
Scripture, as the written Old Testament word stands forever and continues to.
15c “How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring
glad tidings of good things!” Isaiah 52:7.
15d “gospel of peace” Not a pacifist gospel or a social, liberal gospel, but a gospel that
details and expounds how by the death, work and resurrection of Christ, peace is reestablished between God and man. Nor is this “another gospel” or a new gospel,
different from what Paul had been preaching (the gospel of grace). It is simply a term
showing the peace with God that comes from acceptance of this good news that Paul
was preaching.
Most modern versions omit gospel of peace.
15e “good things” The gospel is full of good things and good news, including salvation
from sin, eternal life, re-establishing of fellowship and reconciliation with God, reception
of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, sonship, available promises and covenants to the
new believer, promises of answered prayer, fellowship with the saints. The gospel is
the best news anyone can possibly hear!
15f The ESV completely makes hash out of the last part of the verse “that preach the
gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!” and reduces it to merely
“How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” Where is the gospel
here? There is also no mention of “peace” in the ESV rendering. This is a very bad
translation with all the material omitted.
***************************************************************************************************
308
95. Who Has Believed Our Report? 10:16
10:16 But they have not all obeyedaorist the gospel.a-b For Esaias saith,present Lord,
who hath believedaorist our report?c-d
16a “But they have not all obeyed the gospel” Very few Jews have- a remnant at
best. This can also be applied to Gentiles- anyone who has heard a presentation of the
gospel and has not responded. Most have not, and will not, obey the gospel.
16b “But they have not all obeyed the gospel” The gospel is not just something to
be believed, but also obeyed.
16c “Who hath believed our report?” What preacher doesn’t express this lament at
times! He preaches and prays and witnesses- and sees only a handful of tangible,
physical results. Paul could certainly sympathize with Isaiah, as all of us can. Both
Moses (Deuteronomy 32:21) and Isaiah (Isaiah 53:1; 65:1) predicted Israel's rejection
of the Gospel.
16d “our report?” Or “our preaching and teaching?” The preacher is “reporting” the
Good News and the things of God as a faithful witness of what he has heard and been
told, much like a news reporter would.
****************************************************************************************************
96. The Generation and Source of Faith 10:17
10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing,a and hearing by the wordb of God.c-d
17a “faith cometh by hearing” True saving faith does not exist in a vacuum, nor does
it exist independently from the word of God. In order to generate faith unto salvation,
one must be exposed to the word of God.
17b “word” here is the “rhema” again, showing that it is the spoken Word, through
preaching and witnessing, that does the work. The printed page is not to be despised
for that is simply another way to “speak” the Word- through ink and paper, as that
written Word will speak as loud as a verbal witness. But that Word has to be thrown out
there into the marketplace in one way or another for sinners to be converted.
17c The more you are exposed to the word of God (either by reading or hearing it
preached or studying it) the more faith is generated. The amount and quality of one’s
faith is directly related to how much of the word of God that a person is exposed to.
Much exposure equals much faith. But little Bible results in little faith, with the resulting
problems of coldness, carnality, backsliding and spiritual ignorance. All the great men
309
of God of the past had one thing in common- they spent much time with the Book and
were either preaching or under the sound of preaching as often as they could.
17d Many modern versions change “of God” to “of Christ”, such as the ESV.
****************************************************************************************************
97. Israel’s Lack of Excuse 10:18
10:18 But I say,a-present Have they not heard?b-aorist Yes verily, their soundc wentaorist
into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.d-e
18a The Tyndale’s use of “axe” is funny since so many uneducated young people will
say “Can I axe you something” instead of “Can I ask you something”. Maybe they don’t
know they are following the Tyndale rendering when they slip into their modern slang
dialect! The Coverdale does the same thing in 10:20.
18b “Have they not heard?” A negative answer is assumed- “surely it is not true that
they did not hear”, a double negative giving the idea that Israel has indeed heard.
18c “their sound” This word gives the idea of the beauty of the gospel sound, like a
great and beautiful piece of music.
18d Israel had absolutely no spiritual excuse for their spiritual ignorance. Paul
anticipates an objection that Israel cannot be faulted because they have not heard, but
Paul refutes it. Israel certainly could not plead any sort of ignorance for their sins, for
they had the word of God as its custodian, so they knew it and had heard it enough to
know.
18e “unto the ends of the world” Psalm 19:4. This shows the universal knowledge of
the Bible. It wasn’t just confined to Israel or Europe, but it was known throughout the
entire known world, from Babylon and Persia (by the exiles) to even North America,
taken there by Jewish traders centuries before the birth of Christ (as Hebrew-like
writings have been found in New Mexico that have been dated centuries before the birth
of Christ). The full extent of the distribution of the knowledge of the word of God will
probably never be seen or known as such records are scant and what ones did survive
have been lost, but we are confident that the geographical extent of this verse is true.
****************************************************************************************************
98. God’s Provocation of Israel 10:19-21
10:19 But Ia say,b-present Did not Israel know?c-aorist First Moses saith,present I will
provoke you to jealousyfuture by them that are no people, and by a foolish nationd I
will anger-future you.e
310
19a Emphatic.
19b The Tyndale, Geneva and Bishops use “demand”, probably trying to bring out the
emphatic pronoun.
19c “Did Israel not know? Yes, they do know. They had no excuse for not knowing.
19d “no people…foolish nation” Gentile nations, called Ano people@ because they
had no national covenant with God and were not considered a people by the Jews, bur
rather, were considered dogs. The Gentiles were also called Afoolish@ since they did
not have the law and did not know the mind of God as Israel did. And this verse has
been literally fulfilled as there has been much Jewish anger and resentment over Jesus
Christ and Christianity. There is still much hatred against both, especially among the
orthodox Jews, even to this hour.
19e Although apostate and blind, Israel was not forsaken by God. He entirely intended
to reclaim Israel, just as Hosea reclaimed the harlot Gomer as his wife (Hosea 1,2). To
reclaim Israel away from her legalism and back to God, God intended to use the
powerful emotion of jealousy by working through the Gentiles (Acts 8 onward). What!
God using dogs! God using a nation that are not even counted as a people! God’s
dealings with the Gentiles in the Church Age are designed to provoke Israel to jealousy
in order to bring them back to a right relationship with Him. It has yet to fully work or be
realized, but if Israel would only stop and consider that God is using the Gentiles in the
manner that He wanted to use them instead, wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) that cause a strong
desire for Israel to return to a right relationship and obedience to the God whom they
have wandered away from? The Jew couldn't stand the though of God using a Gentile
to do a Jew's job in witnessing of God to an unsaved and fallen world. Yet this jealousy
only made the Jews more stubborn than ever in their rebellion and blindness.
***************************************************************************************************
10:20a But Esaias is very bold,present and saith,present I was foundaorist of them that
soughtpresent active participle me not;b I was madeaorist middle manifest unto them that
askedc not afterpresent active participle me.
20a Verses 20 and 21 are quoted from Isaiah 65:1,2.
20b “Found of them that sought me not…” The Gentiles, who originally had nothing
to do with God, found Him through faith while the Jews, who knew God, could not find
him after lapsing into dead ritualism and formalism. Yet the “lost” Gentiles found God
while the “found” Jews lost Him in their religious formalism.
20c See note 18a above.
****************************************************************************************************
311
10:21 But to Israel he saith,present All day long I have stretched forthaorist my handsa
unto a disobedientpresent active participle and gainsayingb-present active participle people.c
21a “All day long I have stretched forth my hands…” And he had very little to show
for it- a murdered Son, persecuted prophets and a rejected gospel. Yet God had not
given up on Israel. Israel had rejected and continued to reject Him even after the
Church was formed.
21b “gainsaying” Strong’s #483 antilegw antilegô, from anti anti (Strong’s #473)
against; and legw legô (Strong’s #3004) to speak; to speak against, gainsay, contradict,
to oppose one’s self to one, decline to obey him, declare one’s self against him, refuse
to have anything to do with him. “’Gainsay’ is a combination of the Old English gegn
‘against’ and say. Hence, ‘to gainsay’ is to speak against, contradict, oppose or hinder
(Laurence Vance, Archaic Words and the Authorized Version, pages 158-159).” This
shows that one trait Israel had was a constant “backtalking” to God. When God
revealed Himself to Israel in a certain form, the Jews would fight it and argue against
God, almost as a spoiled child sassing his parents. The Tyndale, Coverdale and
Bishops all use “speaketh against”. The ESV is quite inferior with “contrary”.
21c “disobedient…gainsaying people” Quoted from Isaiah 65:2. The Jews were, and
still are, an argumentative, contradictory people. Israel has always been famous for
wrestling and striving with God, starting with Jacob. The idea is Israel would backtalk
God- God would say something and Israel would argue with God over it- they simply
refused to submit to what He has said. And they liked to argue with God over the
smallest points of theology. This really hasn’t changed even to this day, as Israel is still
in spiritual blindness.
312
Romans Chapter 11
In Romans 11, Paul shows that although the Jew forfeited his national religious
privileges and covenant when he rejected Christ as his king (“We have no king but
Caesar!”), God will reactivate those promises and bring them to fulfillment. Chapters 9
and 10 record Israel’s sad history and present, but their future is bright and full of hope,
as Paul will demonstrate that God has not cast them off and that their greatest days are
still ahead.
*************************************************************************************************
99. Has God Cast Away Israel? 11:1-4
11:1 I saya then, Hath God cast awayaorist middle his people?b God forbid.c-optative For
Id also ampresent an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham,e of the tribe of Benjamin.f
1a The Geneva Bible uses “demand” instead of “say” here and in 11:11..
1b The Greek structure of this question assumes a negative answer. Paul proves God
has not cast away Israel on the fact that God called an Israelite to minister to the
Gentiles- Paul himself. If Israel had been rejected, Paul would not have been called. He
also re-establishes his Jewish heritage and lineage here.
Now it is true that God turned away from Israel to the Gentiles to establish the
Church, but even that does not mean that God has forsaken Israel totally. He simply
has placed them on the shelf temporarily until the fullness of the Gentiles is come. The
early church was primarily Jewish in Acts 2-7 until Israel had used up it’s “three strikes”.
The kingdom is offered in the gospels by Christ and Israel refuses it. Strike one.
The kingdom is offered again by Peter in Acts 3:19,20 and the leadership of the
nation rejected it, although many individual Jews accepted it. Strike two.
Stephen offers it again in Acts 7 and is murdered for it. Strike three and Israel,
as a nation, is out, although individual Jews will still continue to be saved.
In Acts 8, God visits the Samaritans with a revival. In Acts 9, Paul, the apostle to
the Gentiles is saved. In Acts 10 comes the Gentile Pentecost at the house of
Cornelius. In Acts 13 is the first preaching mission to the Gentiles. Israel slips into the
role of persecutor of the church after this point because God has turned His attention to
the Gentile people who will respond to the same gospel that Israel rejected. This state
of affairs will continue until the rapture. As we move into the tribulation, we clearly see
God turning back to Israel as He calls out 144,000 Jewish male virgins to preach to the
tribulation peoples in Revelation 7.
The Coverdale has “thrust out” His people while the ESV uses “rejected”.
1c “God forbid” Paul emphatically states that despite Israel's apostasy and unbelief,
God has not cast them off. The Abrahamic Covenant of Genesis 12 and 15 was an
unconditional promise- God would fulfill His covenant with Israel regardless of how
faithful Israel was or what anyone else did or didn’t do.
313
1d Emphatic.
1e “the seed of Abraham” This is a very high privilege. Jews enjoy it by birth and
faith while Gentiles can access it by faith.
1f Benjamin is the smallest tribe numerically, showing that not only has God not
forsaken Israel, but that He is still using them, even down to the most insignificant tribe.
God was using a rabbi and a Pharisee to write about Israel’s present state and future
condition, showing that God was still using Israel.
**************************************************************************************************
11:2a God hath not cast awayaorist middle his peopleb which he foreknew.c-aorist
Wotpresent ye notd what the scripture saithpresent of Elias?e how he maketh
intercessionf-present to God against Israel, saying,present active participle
2a In verses 2-10, Paul will divide Israel into two groups- a believing minority and an
unbelieving majority.
2b “God hath not cast away his people” This ends all debate on the matter. Paul
refutes postmillennialists and the preterists who believe that God has cast away Israel
and has turned to the Church and that the Church is Israel now. Also see Paul’s three
divisions in 1 Corinthians 10:32- Jew, Gentile and Church. That three-fold division of
humanity is church-age doctrine and relates to this current dispensation. What a very
gross error it is to believe that God has abandoned His covenant people once and for all
and that He has transferred all of Israel’s kingdom promises to the church! If God is
finished with Israel, then why did He go through all of the trouble of re-establishing the
State of Israel in 1948, after over 1900 years with the Jew out of the land? That fact
alone should be sufficient to destroy any notion that God is finished with Israel.
This distinction and separation of Israel and the Church is one of the key
foundations in interpretation of Scripture as well as of dispensationalism. We must be
very careful and diligent to make that distinction every time we can because they are
not the same people. Failure to make that distinction will lead to all manner of
theological error and it has even been used as an excuse for anti-Semitism and
persecution of the Jews. This is why dispensationalists have always been the best
friend of the Jews among Christians.
2c “which he foreknew” Notice the foreknowledge in connection with Paul's discussion
of election in 11:5. Election of a person or nation is at least partially based on God’s
foreknowledge (1 Peter 1:2). God knew Israel would get themselves in the mess they
would yet chose them anyway because He also knew they would eventually respond.
Thus, election and divine foreknowledge are always associated with each other, despite
any and all protests of the Calvinists to the contrary. The foreknowledge of God is an
important element in God’s dealings and His elections. It matters not what all the
314
Calvinstic confessions, creeds, conferences and commentaries say in their denial
regarding the role of foreknowledge in election, for the Scripture is very plain and clear
on this issue. Yes, even the so-called “greats” like Luther, Calvin or Spurgeon or the
“learned divines of the Westminster Assembly” are not infallible and can err.
2d “Wot ye not…” Or “know ye not” or “don’t you know…?” .” “The verb wit occurs
twenty-one times in the AV. ’Wit’ is from the Old English witan, ‘to know’. The present
tense wot appears ten times. None of our modern versions contain any form of these
words. The word wit is used in the AV three times as an infinitive meaning to know.
Wit also appears seventeen times in the expression ‘to wit’ that means indeed, that is to
say, namely, or that is (Laurence Vance, Archaic Words and the Authorized Version,
page 381).”
2e “Elias” Elijah.
2f The Geneva has “communeth” with the ESV has “appeals to God”.
***************************************************************************************************
11:3 Lord, they have killedaorist thy prophets, and digged downaorist thine altars;a
and Ib am leftaorist passive alone,c and they seekpresent my life.d
3a “digged down thine altars” Elijah is being quoted here. For Israel to neglect altars
for worship is bad enough. To attack them and destroy them is even worse. Israel
simply didn’t neglect and forsake the worship of God but militantly attacked both it and
those who remained faithful to God in persecution, especially of the prophets. Stephen
would ask in Acts 7:52 “which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted?” And
Matthew 23:35 shows the Jews have much righteous blood to account for.
3b Emphatic.
3c “left alone” Has the idea of “utterly alone” from the Septuagint. See 1 Kings
19:10,14.
3d “The time of Elias was one of the darkest periods of their history. It seemed as if the
whole nation had apostatized from God. Elias had this conception when he complained
in his despondency. "They have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I
am left alone, and they seek my life." The Lord told him then that there were seven
thousand men who had not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. The apostasy of Israel
was not a complete apostasy. The Lord had preserved a faithful remnant. Even so at
this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. In the beginning
of this present age there was in existence a distinctive Jewish remnant. This JewishChristian remnant in the beginning of the dispensation was an evidence that God had
not cast away His people. A similar remnant of believing Jews will be called for a
315
definite work and testimony during the end of the age. And throughout this Christian
dispensation it has been abundantly demonstrated that God has not cast away His
ancient people, for thousands of them have been saved by grace and have become
members of the body of Christ (A. C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible).”
************************************************************************************************
11:4 But what saithpresent the answer of Goda unto him? I have reservedaorist to
myself seven thousand men,b who have not bowedaorist the kneec to the image of
Baal.d
4a “answer of God” Strong’s #5538 crhmatismov chrêmatismos; a divine response,
an oracle, from a root crhmatizw meaning Ato warn.@ Used only here in the New
Testament..
4b There is no reason to spiritualize the number 7000 away- God meant that He had a
literal 7000 faithful men besides Elijah yet remaining in Israel.
4c “bowed the knee…” or worshipped the various idols of Baal.
4d Despite Israel’s sin and apostasy, God has reserved for Himself a remnant of Israel
just as He did in Elijah's day. This is quoted from 1 Kings 19:18 where Elijah thought
God might have cast Israel away for their idolatry but God said He had reserved unto
Himself a remnant of 7000 men who had not served or kissed Baal. Elijah got his math
wrong- there were over 7000 in the remnant, not just one! The majority of men (and
prophets) had but not this small group that God had reserved unto Himself. So has it
always been as it seems God is always working through remnants. God will always
have someone on the earth who remains faithful, even if that number is very small.
God has always had remnants, from Noah to Abraham to 120 in an upper room
to the Donatists, Waldensians, Anabaptists to remnant saints today. A “remnant” is
something that is left over, and is often unwanted. We are familiar with an example of a
piece of carpet. You may buy an area of carpeting to carpet a room. If you end up with
too much that you do not need, the leftover carpeting is a remnant. It is usually put
aside because it is not needed. But a “remnant” has a more honorable presentation in
the Word of God. The word itself is used over 90 times in Scripture and it has the idea
of people that are small in number and weak in power.
The condition of God’s remnant today is that they are also in great affliction and
reproach in the religious world. It has always been like this. Many of them came out of
various denominations and churches because of the apostasy in those organizations.
The contemporary Christian came in and captured these organizations. These people
had to leave as they no longer had a home there. But generally, only a small
percentage of people ever leave these compromised churches. Many may stay in with
more of a puritan heart, with a hope to somehow rescue the churches and
denominations that they love. They acknowledge the falling away but they stay behind
in hopes of somehow rescuing it. When these people finally come to the inevitable
316
realization that such hopes or rescue and restoration are futile, they will leave and take
on a pilgrim heart to replace their puritan heart. I had to do that when I was in the
Roman Catholic Church. I was saved when I was 13 years old but I remained within the
Church of Rome until I was 18 years old. I had no real hopes for any sort of reform, but
I was too naïve and ignorant of the true depths of the apostasy within the Church of
Rome. When it finally dawned on me that the Church of Rome was beyond any hope, I
left. When people leave such churches, they become part of the remnant. Then people
tend to talk against them, attacking them for their attitudes and stand. Legal action is
even brought against them at times by the churches they have separated from,
especially if property and church buildings are involved.
In Romans 11:5, Paul mentions that “even at this time, there is a remnant
according to the election of grace.” That refers to the nation of Israel theologically, but
practically, it could refer to any group of people who have developed a pilgrim heart and
a pilgrim attitude.
As we go on toward the Second Coming and as the apostasy deepens,
“remnant” is becoming an increasingly desirable word. It is being embraced more and
more, even with the reproach that goes with it. “Remnant Christianity” and “remnant
churches” are becoming more honorable.
The Lord did ask “When the Son of Man returneth, will He find faith on the earth?
(Luke 18:8)” The implied answer was “no, except for a very small number”. At both the
rapture and the advent, there will be only a very few people who will be faithful and who
will be “staying by the stuff”. There are many on the “broad way” but very few on the
“narrow way”, only a remnant of people are to be found there.
****************************************************************************************************
100. The Election of Grace 11:5-7
11:5 Even so then at this present time also there isa-perfect a remnantb according to
the electionc of grace.d
5a “is” is in the perfect tense, showing the absolute certainty and assurance of the
existence of this remnant. It exists and nothing shall be able to change that.
5b “there is a remnant…” The use of the perfect shows this election of a remnant is a
settled fact, already established and fixed in the mind of God.
5c The ESV omits “election”. It is odd that so many neo-Calvinists like the ESV when it
does not do a very good on supposedly “pro-Calvinistic” verses.
5d “election of grace” This election is national- God chose Israel as His chosen people
based on His grace and not upon any merit or goodness that Israel had at that time (for
they had none). This is not individual election unto salvation. And this election would
seem to be based on grace, not sovereignty or anything else here. God chose Israel
through this election basically because He wanted to.
317
****************************************************************************************************
11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace ispresent middle no
more grace.a But if it be of works, then ispresent it no more grace:b otherwise work is
no more work.c-d
6a “And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more
grace” It no longer has the character of grace. Once works are mixed in with grace, it
ceases being grace and degenerates into a mutant-hybrid theological system.
6b The Tyndale and Coverdale basically define “grace” here in their use of “deserving”.
6c “otherwise work is no more work.” The basis of this election is by the grace of
God and not the basis of Israel's merit. If God had chosen Israel by some merit of his
own, God's election would have been by works and not by grace. Ezekiel 16 is a
recounting of God's election of Israel.
6d Many modern versions omit the last 18 words of this verse.
***************************************************************************************************
11:7 What then?a Israel hath not obtainedaorist that which heb seeketh for;present but
the electionc hath obtained it,aorist and the rest were blinded.d-aorist passive
7a What then? If God has not cast away His people, then how do we explain the
current spiritual state of Israel?
7b The ESV uses the neuter “it” when referring to Israel where the traditional
translations all refer to Israel with the masculine pronoun.
7c “the election” Believing Israel, which was a remnant in Paul’s day and that is an
even smaller remnant today..
7d Israel has not obtained that which they sought for (the blessing of God) but the elect
of Israel (the remnant) did. Those who did not find God's blessing were looking to earn
it by works, but the remnant by election and grace found it by believing without works.
The Geneva and ESV use “hardened” for “blinded”.
***************************************************************************************************
101. The Fact of Israel’s Blindness 11:8-10
11:8a (According as it is written,present infinitive passive God hath givenaorist them the
spirit of slumber,b eyes that they should not see,c-infinitive and ears that they should
not hear;infinitive) unto this day.
318
8a This verse is quoted from Isaiah 6:9,10 and 29:10.
8b “God hath given them the spirit of slumber” Israel’s blindness to the truth is sent
by God .
The Tyndale and Coverdale use “quietness” but the Bishops has the odd “spirit of
remorse”. The ESV has it as a “spirit of stupor”.
8c “the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see” This is the veil of 2
Corinthians 3:14 that Paul mentions while discussing Israel’s spiritual blindness.
***************************************************************************************************
11:9a And David saith,present Let their table be madeaorist passive a snare,b and a trap,c
and a stumblingblock,d-4625 and a recompence unto them:e
9a Paul quotes Psalm 69:22,23. God did this to Israel by confounding them spiritually
and by sending them spiritual blindness. Their table is their blessing which God has laid
out as a feast. You could say that Israel has been cursed by a blessing. God's
blessings rejected come back as a boomerang of judgment and light rejected becomes
lightening. The context of Psalm 69 is the death of Christ and His sufferings, so this is
applied to Israel's rejection of the Messiah as being the reason for their blindness. Israel
was recompensed for rejecting the Messiah. They crucified Him so at the siege of
Jerusalem in 70 A.D., 500 Jews were crucified a day by the Romans. It was said that
the Romans ran out of crosses to use, else more Jews would have been crucified. See
also Matthew 27:25 where they declared "His blood be on us and on our children".
They asked for it and for the past 2000 years, they've been paying for it. And Paul also
ascribes the authorship of Psalm 69 to David.
9b “snare” Strong’s #3803 pagiv pagis; snare, trap, noose, of snares in which birds
are entangled and caught, implies unexpectedly, suddenly, because birds and beasts
are caught unawares.
9c “trap” Strong’s #2339 yhra thêra; a hunting of wild beasts to destroy them. Used
only here.
9d “stumblingblock” Strong’s #4625 skandalon skandalon; the movable stick or
trigger of a trap, a trap stick, any impediment placed in the way and causing one to
stumble or fall, (a stumbling block, occasion of stumbling), a rock which is a cause of
stumbling, any person or thing by which one is (entrapped) drawn into error or sin.
9e The covenant blessings that were given to Israel to be a blessing to them instead
became a curse to them because of their unbelief and spiritual stubbornness. They
were “cursed by a blessing” (Malachi 2:2).
****************************************************************************************************
319
11:10 Let their eyes be darkened,aorist imperative passive- that they may not see,a-infinitive
and bow downb-aorist imperative their back alway.c
10a Israel’s blindness is seen, for example, in their accepting the absurdities in the
Talmud, going through the empty ritualism of synagogue worship and accepting as
divinely inspired rabbinical decrees and traditions, as crazy as many of them are.
10b “bow down their back” in hard servitude and slavery, as Israel did in Egypt,
making and hauling bricks.
10c Quoted from Deuteronomy 28:43.
************************************************************************************************
102. The Reason for Israel’s Blindness 11:11-16
11:11 I saypresent then, Have they stumbledaorist that they should fall?aorist subjunctive
God forbid:optative but rather through their falla salvation is come unto the Gentiles,
for to provoke them to jealousy.b
11a The ESV uses “trespass”.
11b God has not dealt so with Israel so that they might all fall, but rather to bring
salvation to the Gentiles. This result would provoke Israel to jealousy with the aim of
resorting them to fellowship. Israel has yet to respond and will not until Revelation 19,
when they see the Lord returning in the clouds in the Second Coming.
Only the ESV follows the King James with the use of “jealousy”. The Tyndale
and Bishops use “with all”. Coverdale has “be zealous after them”. The Geneva has
“follow them”.
****************************************************************************************************
11:12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of
thema the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?b
12a “diminishing of them” Think how Israel was “cut short” since her glory days
under David and Solomon. By the Paul’s day, Israel was nothing more than a
backwater Roman province. Then they were driven out of the land by 135 A.D. and left
to scatter among the nations. They did come back into their land in 1948 but still only
controls a small amount of territory. Spiritually, genuine Judaism has waned in this
present day as liberal versions of Judaism grow as well as the numbers of “nonobservant” Jews. As the Jews have waxed weaker and weaker in their judgment under
God, the Gentiles and Christianity has spread.
The ESV uses “failure” is not a good substitution for “diminishing”. God was
cutting Israel short because of their failure but we need to expand on the idea for a
320
mere “failure” to the consequences of that failure. See 2 Kings 10:32 for a similar
example of God cutting disobedient and apostate Israel “short”.
12b Consider how the Gentiles have been blessed through the fall of Israel by the
establishment of the Church. Then consider how much more of a blessing all the world
will receive when Israel is restored in the Millennium. This is a reference to the
Millennial blessings that Israel, when restored, will bring to the world.
***************************************************************************************************
11:13 For I speakpresent to you Gentiles,a inasmuch as Ib ampresent the apostle of the
Gentiles,c I magnifypresent mine office:d
13a “I speak to you Gentiles” Paul, in a personal note to his Gentile Roman readers,
points out that he, a Jew, is the apostle to the Gentiles, thus foreshadowing what a
blessing Israel is and shall be to the Gentile.
13b Emphatic.
13c “the apostle of the Gentiles” not “an apostle…” This suggests that Paul was the
only one, as the other apostles ministered more to Israel. The Gentiles had only one
apostle to work with them- Paul. The pope styles himself as an “apostle of the Gentiles”
but as with all of his claims, they are illegitimate.
13d “I magnify mine office” Paul does not magnify himself personally but rather his
call and his office. He then is, in effect, magnifying the Lord who called him into the
office of an apostle. His office as an apostle, missionary, church-planter, teacher and
preacher is a glorious one. Do not magnify the man for all flesh is as grass and all men
fail. But the office is of God and should be exalted and respected, especially among
Christians. The unsaved used to have a basic respect for the ministerial office in better
days, but with the immorality, compromise, apostasy and general failure of modern
“ministers”, the world has just about lost all respect for such offices. If it is not Jim
Bakker being blackmailed by women, then it is Tammy Faye Bakker under a ton of
horrible make-up, or Jerry Falwell sliding down water slides at PTL or Jimmy Swaggart
geing caught multiple times with prostitutes or Oral Roberts claiming God would kill him
if he doesn’t raise $8 million or Christian preachers defending the torture under the
George W. Bush administration or Gene Scott chewing on a big black cigar and cussing
on television as he “preached”. The list can go on and on.
****************************************************************************************************
11:14 If by any means I may provoke to emulationa-aorist subjunctive them which are my
flesh, and might saveaorist subjunctive some of them:b
14a Paul also understood his ministry to be the means to provoke Israel to jealousy (or
emulation) (11:11) in order that some might be saved. The Tyndale, Geneva and
321
Bishops do not translate “to emulation”, leaving it merely to “provoke” them. The
Coverdale has this as “provoking them to zeal”. The ESV uses “jealousy”.
“emulation” Same word as “provoke to jealousy” in 11:11. Strong’s #3863
parazhlow parazeloô; to provoke to jealously or rivalry, to provoke to anger 14b “save
some of them” Paul knew that most of his countrymen would reject the gospel. He did
hope for some harvest among the Jews, even if it was only a first-fruits kind of
ingathering, anticipating the larger harvest to come.
****************************************************************************************************
11:15 For if the casting awaya of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall
the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?b
15a The Coverdale uses “the loss of them” which is not as good as “casting away”.
15b Consider what a blessing Israel has been to the entire world even in their
blindness, disobedience and judgment. How much more of a blessing will their
obedience and restoration bring to the earth! When they are restored in the Millennial
Kingdom, Israel will be able to bless the nations as she has never been able to do in her
times of blindness and rebellion.
****************************************************************************************************
11:16 For if the firstfruita be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so
are the branches.b
16a The Coverdale has “beginning” instead of “firstfruits”. The ESV resorts to more
commentary than translation by adding “the dough offered” which is not in the text.
16b If the first-fruits of a lump of dough is holy, so is the entire lump. If the roots are
holy, so are the branches. This would be a reference to the "first-fruits" of Israel
(patriarchs, prophets, believers) making the rest of the Jewish nation partakers of this
holiness (the lump) and allowing the Gentiles to benefit by it (by being engrafted into the
olive tree).
****************************************************************************************************
103. A Warning to the Gentiles 11:17-25
11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off,aorist passive and thou,a beingpresent
a wild olive tree,b wert graffed inc-aorist passive among them,d-e and with
them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;f-g
active participle
17a Emphatic.
17b The Gentiles, as a wild olive tree, is like a tree that bears no fruit or that acts more
like a weed than a fruit-bearing tree. Yet God grafted this worthless vine unto an olive
322
tree so that the olive tree (Israel) could nurture the wild olive tree (Gentiles) by her sap
(blessings). Grafting bad branches from a wild, uncultivated olive tree (Gentiles) into a
good, cultivated olive tree (Israel) is contrary to reason since the bad branches would
contaminate the tree. It is usually the other way around but God seldom works
according to man's reasonings. One would think that grafting Gentiles into the tree of
the Church would ruin the Church and contaminate the Jews, but this fear proved to be
unfounded, as the Gentiles have been a great blessing to the Church.
17c “graffed in” Olive trees were an agricultural and commercial mainstay in the
Middle East and Mediterranean areas, and still support a valuable industry today. Olive
trees can live for hundreds of years, but as they age, they become less productive and
produce fewer olives. In order to restore fruitfulness, branches from younger trees are
grafted to old ones. When a branch ceased to produce olives, a younger one was
grafted in its place.
When were the Gentiles grafted in? Not before the Lord Jesus died on the cross!
The cutting off of the natural branches (Israel) is the same thing as their fall (11:12) and
their being cast away (11:15). This is what gave occasion to Gentile blessing and
privilege. So the cutting off took place in connection with their stumbling, their rejection
of Messiah. The cutting off of the natural branches synchronizes with the grafting in of
the Gentiles. Verse 30 also shows this. It is the Gentiles verses Israel as a nation, but
really professing Gentiles. Just as the cutting off of natural branches and the graft from
the wild olive denote a change, so does the grafting in again of natural branches
represent a change. The remnant of believing Israel, through the election of grace
(11:5), always remains in the good olive.
17d The them refers to Israel as a cultivated olive tree, as opposed to the wild,
uncultivated olive tree that represents the Gentiles. The olive tree is a national symbol
for Israel, or even a burning bush that is not consumed, moreso than the so-called "Star
of David".
17e Although the Gentiles were grafted into the olive tree with Israel, this does not
mean that the Gentiles became Jews or part of the nation of Israel. The Gentiles were
grafted into that olive tree but still remained distinct from Israel. Even today, there is still
Israel, the Gentiles and the Church of God and that distinction will not change.
17f There are a few Old Testament passages that picture Israel as an olive tree:
1. Isaiah 17:6 Yet gleaning grapes shall be left in it, as the shaking of an olive
tree, two or three berries in the top of the uppermost bough, four or five in the outmost
fruitful branches thereof, saith the LORD God of Israel.
2. Isaiah 24:13 When thus it shall be in the midst of the land among the people,
there shall be as the shaking of an olive tree, and as the gleaning grapes when the
vintage is done.
3. Hosea 14:6 His branches shall spread, and his beauty shall be as the olive
tree, and his smell as Lebanon.
323
These verses deal with Israel as an olive tree in a eschatological sense, mainly in the
“shaking” of the olive tree in the tribulation and it’s eventual restoration.
17g There Are two olive trees.. There is a good olive tree, Israel (11:24) and a wild
olive tree, the Gentiles (11:17,24). This refers to the fact that Israel was in the place of
privilege and specially under the scrutiny of God. The Gentiles did not occupy such a
place of privilege. There is a good olive tree and a wild olive tree. There is a position
of privilege on the earth and there is a position outside of this privilege. Gardeners take
a branch from a good tree and graft it to a wild tree. In Romans 11 the opposite takes
place, in that what was cut out of the wild olive tree was grafted into a good olive tree
(11:24) and we are told that this is contrary to nature (11:24).
The fatness of the olive tree represents the privileges and blessings granted by
God to Israel, through their relation to Abraham and the grace and election of God on
their behalf. These are external and national blessings, not necessarily spiritual.
****************************************************************************************************
11:18 Boastpresent imperative not against the branches. But if thou boast,present middle
thoua bearestpresent not the root, but the root thee.b
18a Emphatic.
18b The Gentiles are not to boast in their position in relation to Israel. If God pruned
the olive tree (Israel) in judgment, what would He do to the wild olive tree if it got too
high-minded? The only reason the Gentiles have the privileges they do is because of
Israel's fall, not in any merit the Gentiles might have had. And as God judged Israel, He
would also judge the Gentiles if they got proud or high-minded.
****************************************************************************************************
11:19 Thou wilt sayfuture then, The branchesa were broken off,aorist passive that Ib
might be graffed in.c-aorist subjunctive passive
19a The ESV omits the article, so we just have “branches” instead of “the” specific
branches referring to Israel. The omitting of the article in the ESV makes it ambiguous
who the “branches” are.
19b Emphatic. This emphatic attitude on the part of the Gentile does reveal pride
against Israel, for which Paul is condemning in this passage.
19c Was Israel judged just for the spiritual benefit of the Gentiles? Not at all. The
Jews were judged for reasons independent of the Gentiles. The Gentiles simply
received some associated benefits from Israel’s plight. It is not that God removed the
Jews only to replace them with Gentiles. God has no intention of “replacing” the Jews
with the Gentiles. No sort of “replacement theology” can be considered orthodox. Thus
also undermines a central presupposition of Covenant Theology, that God turned from
324
Israel after the death of Christ and is now working through the Gentiles, and that He will
not return to the Jews, as the Church replaced Israel permanently. Israel still literally
exists and is still very much in the land as of this hour. Spiritually, they are separate
and distinct from the Gentiles. God has separate plans for both people as God has not
forsaken them or abandoned them. It is true that Israel has “been on the shelf” since
they rejected Christ, but even that is temporary, as they will be called back into service
and will again take center stage during the tribulation period and into the millennium.
This heresy can usually be seen in books like (but not limited to) the Thompson
Chain Reference Bible. If you check out the chapter headings in certain Old Testament
chapters (especially in Psalms or Isaiah), you’ll see the Church being mentioned as the
subject of the chapter instead of Israel. The New Testament Church is not in view in the
Old Testament and must not be confused with Israel when studying Old Testament
prophecy.
***************************************************************************************************
11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off,a-aorist passive and thou
standestperfect by faith. Be not highminded,b-present imperative but fear:c
20a “because of unbelief they were broken off” This judgment came because not of
a lack of works or the wrong works, but rather, through a lack of faith.
20b “highminded” Strong’s # 5309 ‘uqhlofronew hupsêlophroneô; from ‘uqhlov
hupselos (Strong’s #5308) high, lofty; and fren phren (Strong’s #5424) understanding,
the heart; to be high minded, proud. Used only here and in 1 Timothy 6:17.
20c “Be not highminded, but fear” Some Gentiles (even today) would use Israel’s
setting aside because of their apostasy as an excuse to vaunt the Church against Israel
or to try to steal their Kingdom promises or as an excuse for anti-Semitism. All three
unchristian and unbiblical attitudes are condemned and warned about by Paul, that we
are not to build ourselves up spiritually (or in any other way) at Israel’s expense.
The Tyndale and Coverdale both move the last part of this verse to verse 21.
****************************************************************************************************
11:21 For if God sparedaorist middle not the natural branches, take heed lest he also
spareaorist middle subjunctive not thee.a
21a The warning to the Gentiles is that they face being "cut off" from the blessing they
could receive from Israel. It is like a branch that is pruned away. As soon as it is cut off
from the sap of the tree, it dies. This is not a reference to losing salvation (impossible
for the Christian) but this is addressed to the Gentiles as a whole, not individually. God
could cut off a people as a whole (withdrawing national privileges God grants to certain
nations) while still saving individuals. Application today would include God not sparing a
local church if it apostatized. A good example of this would be the 7 Churches of Asia in
325
Revelation 2,3 which do not survive to this day. They fell away and there is no trace of
them today as local churches.
****************************************************************************************************
11:22 Beholdaorist imperative therefore the goodness and severitya of God: on them
which fell,aorist active participle severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continueaorist
subjunctive
in his goodness: otherwise thoub also shalt be cut off.c-aorist middle subjunctive
22a The Tyndale, Coverdale and Bishops have “kindness and righteousness”. The
Geneva has “bountifulness and severity”. The ESV takes a bit from with “kindness and
severity”.
22b Emphatic.
22c Behold both the goodness and the severity of God here- goodness that He even
bothered to engraft Gentiles into Israel's olive tree but severity in judgment for those
who get high-minded as a result of God's blessings toward them. After all, if God was
so severe in His judgments upon His own covenant people, how much harsher would
He be in judging the Gentiles?
****************************************************************************************************
11:23 And theya also, if they abideaorist subjunctive not still in unbelief, shall be graffed
in:future for God ispresent able to graffaorist infinitive them in again.b
23a Emphatic.
23b Israel’s current spiritual unbelief does not affect God’s future plans for them.
****************************************************************************************************
11:24 For if thoua wert cutaorist passive out of the olive tree which is wild by nature,b
and wert graffedaorist passive contrary to nature into a good olive tree:c how much
more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffedfuture into their own
olive tree?
24a Emphatic.
24b Gentile nations.
24c “Good olive tree”- Israel (but Isaiah 5 might make one wonder!)
****************************************************************************************************
11:25 For I wouldpresent not, brethren, that ye should be ignorantpresent infinitive of this
mystery,a lest ye should bepresent subjunctive wise in your own conceits; that blindness
326
in part is happenedperfect to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentilesb be come in.aorist
subjunctive
25a Paul calls this revelation about the judgments on Israel and the fullness of the
Gentiles a "mystery"- something hidden that is now revealed and expounded. This
mystery is the engrafting of the Gentiles into the blessings of Israel.
The ESV leaves out the mention of not being ignorant of this mystery.
25b "Fulness of the Gentiles" is a reference to the Church Age (which is primarily
Gentile), not to be confused with the "Times of the Gentiles" which is the domination of
the Gentile nations in world affairs (Luke 21:24).
***************************************************************************************************
104. All Israel Shall Be Saved 11:26,27
11:26a And so all Israel shall be saved:b -future passive as it is written,c-perfect passive There
shall comefuture passive out of Sion the Deliverer,present middle/passive participle and shall turn
awayfuture ungodliness from Jacob:
26a This verse and verse 27 quotes Isaiah 59:20,21.
26b God clearly states that all Israel will be saved (Isaiah 66:8; Zechariah 12:10-14;
13:9). The passive indicates that an outside force (God in this case) saves Israel and
that they do not save themselves. This will occur at the Second Coming and refers only
to Israel. All surviving Jews who make it through the tribulation and live to see the
Second Coming will be saved for they shall all accept Christ. This is why it is necessary
for a Jew to survive the tribulation in order to be saved. Otherwise, if he dies, he dies
lost and perishes (Matthew 24:13).
This does not mean that the Jews can’t go to hell or do not need to be born again
(in this dispensation) or receive Christ at the Second Coming or fulfill Matthew 24:13.
After all, we see Jews going down alive into hell in Numbers 16:33. The Jewish “rich
man” was in torments in Luke 16. The unbelieving Jewish religious leaders where
called “children of hell” by the Lord in Matthew 23. Jesus told a Jewish religious leader
that he had to be born again in John 3:7. This verse had to do with Jews who survive
the tribulation period to see the Lord coming in the Second Advent. Every Jew who
survives to that point will accept Christ and will be saved. That is what Matthew 24:13 is
referring to!
26c “as it is written” Perfect tense- it has been written and remains written, not to be
changed or altered. It is a completed action with continuous results or the continuance
of an act completed in the past. The components are always a past action and
continuous results. References to the Scriptures like this are often presented in the
perfect tense. "The just shall live by faith" is one of those unalterable truths of
327
Christianity. This perfect tense in reference to New Testament references to Old
Testament texts is used 62 times in the New Testament, 16 times in Romans (1:17;
2:24; 3:4,10; 4:17; 8:36; 9:13,33; 10:15; 11:8,26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3,9,21). This usage
of the perfect is a strong argument for the verbal and plenary preservation of the
Scripture, as the written Old Testament word stands forever and continues to.
***************************************************************************************************
11:27 For this is my covenanta unto them, when I shall take awayaorist middle subjunctive
their sins.b
27a This is a reference to the New Covenant made in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and
discussed in Hebrews 8:8-13
27b “when I shall take away their sins” Israel's sins shall also be taken away at this
same time of the Second Coming, when they will start with a “clean slate” with God.
****************************************************************************************************
105. Israel’s Position With God 11:28-31
11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as
touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.a
28a The Jewish persecution of the Church allowed the Church to grow, define its
doctrine, and spread through the Roman Empire. In that sense, the Jews did more to
advance the cause of the Gospel than anyone else by their hatred and persecution.
The Jews were enemies and persecutors of God’s people but they were still the
Beloved of God, even in their blindness and ignorance.
****************************************************************************************************
11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.a
29a God never changes His mind in His dealings with His covenants. Covenants may
be stalled or postponed but they are not cancelled. Due to Israel's sin, God may have
regretted (at times) entering into covenants with Israel, but He keeps His promises
regardless.
****************************************************************************************************
11:30 For as yea in times past have not believedb-aorist God, yet have now obtained
mercyaorist passive through theira unbelief:b-c
30a Emphatic.
30b The ESV uses “disobedience”.
328
30c The Gentiles, at one point in their history, were atheistic and idolatrous, yet God
forgave them, even if they were not the covenant people of God and had no covenants
with God. Yet God forgave them through His grace. If God did that for Gentiles, how
much more will re forgive and redeem His covenant people, Israel?
****************************************************************************************************
11:31 Even so have these also now not believed,30b-aorist that through your mercy
theya also may obtain mercy.b-aorist subjunctive passive
31a Emphatic.
31b Israel is in unbelief yet are not cast away but there is hope for them by the mercy
extended to the Gentiles. If God has dealt with a people who are not a people the way
He has, we may expect Him to do even greater things for Israel.
****************************************************************************************************
106. A Concluding Doxology 11:32-36
11:32 For God hath concludedaorist them all in unbelief,a that he might have
mercyaorist subjunctive upon all.b
32a The Tyndale and Bishops use “wrapped all nations in unbelief.” Coverdale uses
“closed up all under unbelief”. The Geneva is similar God “shutting them up”. The ESV
has the worst reading with “consigned”.
32b In order to qualify for God's mercy, you need to be a hopeless sinner. God does
not extend mercy or grace to good people (those who are self-righteous). God has
concluded all under sin so that He may have mercy upon all. That means if you are a
sinner, God will have mercy on you. No “reprobation”, no “limited atonement”- just free
grace and free mercy extended to all who will believe.
****************************************************************************************************
11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!a how
unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!b-c
33a Why does the Coverdale makes this a question?
33b A doxology as Paul summarizes the faithfulness of God’s ways and dealings with
both Israel and the Gentiles.
33c The ESV again uses a harder and longer word of “inscrutable”, which it also did in
verse 32. The critical translations are usually harder to read with its use of longer
329
words. Compared to the modern translations, the King James is the easiest translation
to read.
****************************************************************************************************
11:34a For who hath knownaorist the mind of the Lord? or who hath beenaorist middle
his counsellor?b
34a This verse quotes Isaiah 40:13 and 14.
34b The sovereignty of God is the ultimate answer as to why God does what He does
in the way that He does it, including His dealings with Israel and the Gentiles. There
may be some reasons that can be understood by human reason, but not necessarily, as
God often works in ways that cannot be understood by human reason.
***************************************************************************************************
11:35 Or who hath first givenaorist to him, and it shall be recompensedfuture passive-a
unto him again?a
35a Basically, Paul is saying that God owes no one anything, whether it be Jew or
Gentile. God deals with all mankind on the basis of His grace and love, nothing else.
***************************************************************************************************
11:36a For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory
for ever.b Amen.
36a Isn’t it interesting how one of the loftiest and most sublime verses in Scripture that
expresses such praise to God is made up of some of the the simplest words in the
English language?
36b The glory of God is another reason why God does what He does (see note 34b for
the other reason). God works in ways that are designed to glorify Him in the greatest
way possible.
330
Romans Chapter 12
Structure for Romans 12:
I. The Burnt Offering 12:1,2
II. The Burnt Offering Life 12:3-21
We have sanctification followed by service. Service always flows from sanctification,
not the other way around! Simply because you may be busy for the Lord does not
necessarily mean that you are right with the Lord, contrary to what was taught by the
hyper-evangelistic wing of fundamentalism, mainly by Jack Hyles and his followers.
Romans 12:1,2 is holy ground for the believer, the ultimate goal of his Christian life and
walk, the exhortation by Paul to fully and totally dedicate himself to the will of God and
to the service of God by offering his body and life as the equivalent of the Old
Testament burnt offering. The companion Old Testament passages are Genesis 22,
Leviticus 1 and 6.
The Book of Romans leads the sinner, step by step, from his most wretched state into
the highest burnt offering life (Romans 1-8, 12-16). In Romans, Paul starts at the lowest
level of humanity, with the universal sin of mankind in chapters 1 and 2. He then deals
with the cures of sin in chapters 3 and 4. Once salvation has been settled, the doctrines
of sanctification are dealt with in chapters 5-8, culminating in the highest expression of
the Christian life in 12:1,2, the burnt offering and the subsequent life that results from it.
We are now at the capstone of Romans. After this comes the practical exhortation of
Romans, dealing with the Christian life. But these practical commands can only be
carried out after the burnt offering.
****************************************************************************************************
107. The Burnt Offering 12:1,2
12:1 I beseech-a-present you therefore,b brethren,c by the mercies of God,d that ye
presente-aorist infinitive your bodiesf-g a living sacrifice,h holy,i acceptablej unto God,
which is your reasonablek service.l
1a “I beseech” Paul makes a very strong request regarding the burnt offering life. He
cannot command this but he can strongly plead for the burnt offering life. In light of the
great truths Paul expounded in chapters 1-8, shouldn't this move the Christian to
consecrate himself to God? And since the burnt offering was a voluntary offering and a
sweet savor offering (as the voluntary offerings were) (Leviticus 1:3), Paul cannot
command it, even with all of his apostolic authority. No man can command spirituality
and devotion of another, as it must be a willing thing if it is to be a sweet-smelling savor
unto God.
The ESV’s use of “appeal” could be stronger as it doesn’t correspond very well to
331
“beseech”.
1b “therefore” This plea for the burnt offering is based on all the great doctrinal truths
of Romans 1-8. Seeing we now accept and hopefully understand this doctrine, what
effect will it have on our lives in a practical sense? Seeing how good God has been to
us and how good He shall continue to be, what should our proper response be?
Doctrine must have a practical side to it and correct doctrine should affect how we live
and act and should lead to a fuller dedication and consecration to Christ.
1c “brethren” The unsaved cannot engage in the burnt offering life because they have
no holy offering to bring. The burnt offering life is solely for the saint.
1d “mercies of God” Newell, in his commentary on Romans, lists some of these
mercies already mentioned by Paul in Romans:
1. JUSTIFICATION,--including pardon, removal of sins from us, trespasses never
to be reckoned, a standing in Christ,--being made the righteousness of God in Him!
2. IDENTIFICATION--taken out of Adam by death with Christ,--dead to sin and to
law, and now IN CHRIST!
3. UNDER GRACE, NOT LAW--Fruit unto God,--unto sanctification, made
possible.
4. THE SPIRIT INDWELLING--"No condemnation," freedom from law of sin;
witness of Sonship and Heirship.
5. HELP IN INFIRMITY, and in any present sufferings, on our way to share
Christ's glory.
6. DIVINE ELECTION: Our final Conformity to Christ's image as His brethren;
God's settled Purpose,--in which, believers already glorified in God's sight!
7. COMING GLORY--beyond any comparison with present sufferings!
8. NO SEPARATION POSSIBLE--God loved us in Christ.
9. CONFIDENCE IN GOD'S FAITHFULNESS confirmed by His revealed plans
for national Israel.
1e “present” Strong’s #3936 parisymi paristêmi or prolonged paristanw paristanô;
from para para (Strong’s #3844) near and ‘isthmi histêmi (Strong’s #2476) to place,
stand; to place beside or near, to stand beside, stand by or near, to be at hand, be
present. “A technical term for offering a sacrifice (Josephus, Ant. IV. 6, 4), though not in
the Old Testament. Used of presenting the child Jesus in the temple (Luke 2:22), of the
Christian presenting himself (Romans 6:13), of God presenting the saved (Ephesians
5:27), of Christ presenting the church (Colossians 1:28) (Robertson’s Word Pictures).”
This presenting of the body assumes a deliberate and volitional act on our part.
Just as the Old Testament saint had to deliberately load up his cart with the animal, take
it whatever distance to the tabernacle and deliberately offer it, so must we also
deliberately go through those same actions as we present our bodies and our lives as a
living sacrifice.
332
The Bishops Bible has this as “give up your bodies”, almost as in an act of
surrender.
1f “present your bodies” offer them, yield them, surrender them. Instead of bringing
animals for sacrifice, we are now to bring ourselves and present ourselves to God. Our
physical body is the most valuable earthly possession we have for through it we both
live and serve God. The Lord does not force us to make this self-offering (it would not
be a “sweet savor” offering if He did) but strongly encourages us to do so. Our bodies
are the instruments of service for the Lord while we are on earth, and as such, needs to
be set first offered to Him and then set apart for His use. Our bodies are our most
prized earthly possession for they are our physical life. A heifer or goat may have some
value but what is more valuable than ourselves, our very bodies? Paul begs us to offer
up that thing that is the nearest and dearest to us- ourselves. In 6:16, we were to
present our bodies as instruments for the warfare. Here, we are to present them as
sacrifices unto the Lord.
The bodies must be deliberately presented unto the Lord because it is the lowest
part of our natures and the part of us that gives us the most trouble. It often hinders our
soul and seduces it to sin. Therefore, it must be brought under the controlling power of
the Spirit of God if we expect our souls and spirit to be of any use to God or to be
acceptable unto Him.
1g “bodies” The Greeks only cared about the Spirit and had nothing but contempt for
the body. But we realize the importance of the body, as the outlet for our earthly life
and service for Christ. It cannot be ignored and should not be despised. The physical
body belongs to God and it should be put to His service. It is the temple of the Holy
Spirit and should be given the respect due to it based on that. Christ took a literal
human body on earth, so He was not ashamed of His body, just as we should despise
ours.
1h “a living sacrifice” You can do more with a living sacrifice than you can with a
dead one. Many people say they would be willing to die for the Lord but what He really
wants are people who will live for Him. Shall the dead praise God? Will He do wonders
for the dead? Dead sacrifices don’t accomplish much except rotting in a grave.
There were three forms of bodily sacrifice practiced under the Mosaic Law:
1. Sin offering- type of Christ as substitute and sin-bearer
2. Burnt offering- type of Christ in His active and passive obedience
3. Peace offering- sign of peace established between God and man
We are concentrating on the burnt offering here, as laid out in Leviticus 1 and 6. The
Hebrew word is “olah” which means "ascending.” The whole sacrifice was consumed
by fire, and was regarded as ascending to God while being consumed. Part of every
offering was burnt in the sacred fire, but this was wholly burnt, a "whole burnt offering."
It was the most frequent form of sacrifice. The law of Moses afterwards prescribed the
occasions and the manner in which burnt sacrifices were to be offered. There were "the
333
continual burnt offering" (Exodus 29:38-42; Leviticus 6:9-13; "the burnt offering of every
sabbath," which was double the daily one (Numbers 28:9,10); "the burnt offering of
every month" (Numbers 28:11-15); the offerings at the Passover (Numbers 28:19-23); at
Pentecost (Leviticus 23:16); the feast of Trumpets (Leviticus 23:23-25); and on the day
of Atonement (Leviticus 16:1ff.). Free-will burnt offerings were also permitted (Leviticus
1:13). These offerings signified the complete dedication of the offerers unto God.
The burnt offering was a Awhole@ offering, showing that the offerer is offering himself
totally and completely to God without reservation and without holding anything back
from God.
The burnt offering was also a continual offering (Exodus 29:42; Numbers 28:331). It is a way of life, not an occasional thing. The burnt offering life is something that
is lived and practiced 24/7.
The burnt offering is a voluntary offering (Leviticus 1:3). It was not commanded.
God does not force anyone into a burnt offering life. It must be desired on our part.
If was offered at the door of the tabernacle, at the brazen altar (Leviticus 1:6). In order
to go into the holy place for the deep communion and fellowship, you first had to pass
the brazen altar and were confronted by the need of offering a burnt offering sacrifice in
dedication and consecration before you could enter those doors and go into the inner
chambers.
1i “holy” is the only kind of offering that is presentable to the Lord and is the only kind
that He will accept. The sacrifice is unacceptable if the body is being used for
fornication or some other sin at the time of offering. This sacrifice is to be holy (the
Christian's positional standing) and set apart for service (sanctification). "Holiness unto
the Lord" ought to be inscribed on our bodies. Make sure that we are possessing our
vessels in holiness and are not defiling them with the sins of our generation.
The Old Testament animal sacrifices were to be without blemish or defect (Exodus 12:5;
Leviticus 1:10; Deuteronomy 15:21). Our living New Testament sacrifices should be
just as perfect in that regard.
1j “acceptable” Strong’s #2101 euarestov euarestos; from eu eu (Strong’s #2095)
well, and areskw areskô (Strong’s #700) to please; well pleasing, acceptable
Six things that make this sacrifice acceptable:
1. Present your bodies as a living sacrifice
2. Make it a holy offering
3. Make it an acceptable offering
4. Render reasonable service
5. Do not be conformed to this world
6. Be transformed from this world
1k “reasonable” Strong’s #3050 logikov logikos; pertaining to speech or speaking, to
the reason or logic, agreeable to reason, following reason, reasonable, logical. Used
334
only here and in 1 Peter 2:2. This was a favorite word of the Greek philosophers,
especially the Stoics. It marks that distinction of reason that separates men from
beasts.
1l “service” This is our reasonable service. It makes sense and is logical for the
Christian. It should be the natural desire for the Christian to want to present his body to
the Lord. This is what constitutes real worship. It is not just liturgy or an “order or
worship”. Genuine worship is the life (both body and spirit) offered up to God in service.
***************************************************************************************************
12:2 And be not conformeda-present imperative to this world:b but be ye transformedcpresent imperative
by the renewingd of your mind,e-f that ye may proveinfinitive what is that
good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.g
2a “conformed” The idea of “fashioning yourself” is shown in the pre-King James
translations, while both the King James and ESV use “conform”.
2b “world” This world system and its philosophies, not the physical earth. Don't let
this world-system and its philosophies (or your current generation) that is under the
control of Satan pour you into its mold but rather resist it. This world is evil because it is
fallen and is under the control of Satan, the god of this age. The world, or generation, in
which we live, delights in trying to control your thinking and mold your attitudes to follow
the fashions of the world. It seeks to take your mind and literally re-cast it in the image
of itself. The world is very good at this and it will take all the infilling power of the Holy
Spirit and dedication to God to fight it.
2c The burnt offering should transform our lives as Christ was transfigured on the
Mount of Transfiguration in Matthew 17:2.
The King james has the strongest reading for “transformed”. The Tyndale has
“changed in your shape” while the Coverdale, Geneva and Bishops use “changed”.
Even the ESV follows the King James here.
2d “renewing” Strong’s #342 anakainwsiv anakainôsis; a renewal, renovation,
complete change for the better. This word is only found in Christian literature. Our
mind is renewed by the Holy Spirit at salvation. Our thought processes are worldly,
carnal and not godly in our natural state. When we are saved, the Holy Spirit takes our
minds and energizes them so that we may think the thoughts of God after Him,
understand the Scriptures and spiritual things and desire to live for God. Unsaved men
do not have this renewed mind.
In order to resist the lure of the world, the mind must be renewed by the power of
the Holy Spirit. We cannot resist the world on our own for it is too strong and its
allurements are simply too enticing for us to resist. The mind is where this battle against
the world system is fought.
335
2e “will of God” Notice the three wills of God for every believer here:
1. The good will of God. This is the lowest will, what is sometimes called the
“permissive will of God”, which is something God allows us to do, but that is probably
the best thing for them to do. The majority of Christians are fulfilling the “tolerated will”
of God but never go beyond it.
2. The acceptable will of God. This is better than the “good will”, as you are
getting closer to the perfect, or the best will of God.
3. The perfect will of God. Here is where we should desire to be, in full
obedience to His revealed will for us, and at the center of this will.
2f The Tyndale uses the old idea of “mind” with “renewing your wits”.
2g Six things in this passage then can be said to make up the “perfect” will of God:
1. Presenting our bodies as a burnt offering sacrifice
2. Making such a sacrifice a holy one
3. Make such an offering an acceptable one to God
4. Render reasonable service
5. Do not be conformed to this age
6. Be transformed by the renewing of the Holy Spirit
The will of God for us is always good, acceptable and perfect. It is always for our good,
yea, for our best, and for the glory of God. It is also perfect, as it must be, seeing it is
the will of a perfect God. Our will, that we concoct for ourselves, is seldom good or
acceptable and it certainly cannot be said to be perfect since it comes from an imperfect
sinner, motivated by the lust of his eyes and flesh, as well as by the pride of life.
****************************************************************************************************
108. The Burnt Offering Life 12:3-21
12:3 For I say,present through the grace givenaorist passive participle unto me, to every man
that ispresent active participle among you, not to think of himselfa more highly than he
oughtpresent to think;b-present infinitive- but to thinkpresent infinitive soberly,c--infinitive according
as God hath dealtaorist to every man the measure of faith.
3a The Tyndale, Coverdale and Bishops use “esteem himself”. The Geneva does not
have a good rendering at all, that starts with “presume to understand above that which
is meet”. That could have been improved upon.
3a Humility is enjoined here, not to exalt ourselves or to think more of ourselves than
we ought to. A spirit-filled man is a humble man. He knows exactly what he is and
what his limitations are. And nothing is more revolting than a proud preacher, who
thinks that he is the greatest thing since sliced bread and that the Church revolves
around him.
336
3b “soberly” Strong’s #4993 swfronew sophroneô; to be of sound mind, to be in
one’s right mind, to exercise self control, to put a moderate estimate upon one’s self,
think of one’s self soberly, to curb one’s passions. In popular Greek philosophy, it
referred to modesty and restraint. In other words, think like a Christian and not as an
unsaved man. Let no man think himself more or greater than God has made him; and
let him know that what ever he is or has of good or excellence, he has it from God; and
that the glory belongs to the giver, and not to him who has received the gift. “that is,
either not to arrogate to himself what does not belong to him, and detract from others,
who may have equal, if not superior, abilities to him; or not to glory in what he has, as if
he had not received it, and as if it was altogether owing to his own sagacity, penetration,
diligence, and industry; or not to search into things too high for him that are out of his
reach, and beyond his capacity; though this is not to be understood as discouraging a
search into the Scriptures of truth, the more difficult parts of it, and the more knotty
points of controversy; but as forbidding inquiry into things not lawful to be searched into,
or, if lawful, as requiring such a scrutiny to be made with modesty, and an humble
dependence on superior light and assistance, and a discovery of it with humility and
lowliness of mind (John Gill).”
This would also include having a balanced temperament and think process. Do
not get extreme in your thinking. Avoid hyper-Calvinism and hyper-Arminianism. Don’t
hang out on the fringes of anything. Live a balanced Christian life, not neglecting any
area or compartment of your life. Don’t get so wrapped up in the ministry that you
neglect your family or your secular job, if you have one. Don’t preach hobby horses but
preach on the whole counsel of God. I monitor my preaching in that I have a record of
every sermon I have preached since my first message in May, 1986. That’s over 6,000
sermons to date (April, 2013). I review it occasionally to make sure I am not neglecting
certain truths or doctrines or books, but also that I am not over-emphasizing any of them
either to the exclusion of others. I have known men who can only preach on prophecy
or soulwinning or missions or faithfulness or tithing, but little else. That is an
unbalanced ministry and does not reflect sober thinking.
The Tyndale, Coverdale and Bishops use “discreetly” for “soberly”.
****************************************************************************************************
12:4 For as we havepresent many members in one body, and all members havepresent
not the same office:a-b
4a The body of Christ, or the universal church, which is made up of all saved people
since Pentecost (Acts 2) regardless of denomination. The universal church is likened to
a human body. This picture breaks down if applied only to local churches as Landmark
Baptists insist, since some local churches are too small to have enough people that
possess all the spiritual gifts. But the universal church has them all. This great spiritual
body, like a physical body, has many members, or parts, to it, like a head, arms, legs,
ears, etc. All these elements are part of the same body but they do not all have the
337
same function. The eye and ear are in the same body but their offices are quite
different. But one is just as valuable as useful as the other. As long as each part does
its job the way it is supposed to, there is harmony in the body. In the Church, different
people have specialized ministries according to the various spiritual gifts given to them
by the Lord. Some can sing and have musical ability, so they gravitate toward the
musical ministry. Some are really good dealing with people so they specialize in
evangelism and personal work. Some can teach and are scholars so they take up the
teaching ministries. Some are good with money and numbers so they oversee the
financial activities. The handymen will take up maintenance. The prayer warriors do
the bulk of the intercession work. These are all different offices but they all work to
promote the same body and its united interests.
And I am fully aware that there are several flavors of Baptists who would call my
use of the term “universal church” above heresy and non-Baptist doctrine, a holdover
from Protestantism and Catholicism. But such is not the case, as the Body of Christ is
not a Baptist body but it is a Biblical body, made up of all truly born again saints,
regardless of theological system or denominational distinctives.
There is no such thing as an unimportant ministry in the Church. You have a
specific ministry the Lord gave you and only you can do it for you are fitted for it by the
Lord. If you neglect it or aspire to a ministry the Lord didn't call you to, your ministry
doesn't get done. We all can't pastor or be nationally-known evangelists. God
determines who does what. Wherever God places you, fulfill that ministry until He
moves you into a different one.
1 Corinthians 12 expands on these thoughts as to ministries within the Body of
Christ and our place and gifts within it, which see.
4b “office” Strong’s #4234 praxiv praxis; a doing, a mode of acting, a deal, a
transaction, a thing to be done, business. We get our English suffix “-praxy” from this,
such as “orthopraxy” which means “straight or right doing”.
**************************************************************************************************
12:5 So we,a being many, arepresent one body in Christ,b and every one members
one of another.c
5a Believing Jews and Gentiles make up this “one body”. Paul, a converted Pharisee,
includes himself in that body and identifies himself with believing Gentiles.
5b The “one body” concept destroys Baptist Bride-ism, which teaches that every local
Baptist church (their kind of Baptist church) is a body of Christ in itself. They believe
there is no universal church, only local Baptist (their kind) of churches. But this is
illogical. There must be several thousand, if not tens of thousand, Baptist churches in
America. Are each one a separate body of Christ? Does Christ have 10,000 bodies in
America? And if this is true, what a monstrosity of a body we have here- one head
(Christ) and thousands upon thousands of “bodies”. What sort of a creature is this?
338
5c The Tyndale seems to add the idea of these members “serving” at the end of verse
5, but I’m not sure where he would have gotten that idea as none of the other traditional
text translations have that idea.
****************************************************************************************************
12:6 Havingpresent active participle then giftsa differing according to the grace that is
givenaorist passive participle to us, whether prophecy,b-c let us prophesy according to the
proportion of faith;d
6a Every Christian has at least one spiritual gift for ministry and some have multiple
gifts. These gifts are listed in 1 Corinthians 12:8-10 as:
1. Word of wisdom
2. Word of knowledge
3. Faith
4. Healing
5. Working of miracles
6. Prophecy
7. Discerning of spirits
8. Tongues
9. Interpretation of tongues
My spiritual gifts are different than yours since my ministry is different from you. Also,
there are differences for the sake of variety, for who needs a church with 100
bricklayers but no teachers or no one gifted to hand the finances?
6b “prophecy” Strong’s #4394 profhteia prophêteia; prophecy, a discourse
emanating from divine inspiration and declaring the purposes of God, whether by
reproving and admonishing the wicked, or comforting the afflicted, or revealing things
hidden; especially by foretelling future events. A prophet then is not just one who
foretells the future but also is a man who serves as a mouthpiece for God as He speaks
that which He wanted the people to hear. Today, we have preachers who (should)
function as prophets to speak the Word of God from God directly. A preacher who
declares the Word of God without making future predictions is as much of a prophet as
an Old Testament Elijah or Isaiah would be. And since the predictive office of a prophet
is in suspense during this age, the application would solely be to the preacher during
the Church Age. But we will probably see the predictive aspect of this gift and office
return in the Tribulation.
“By "prophesying" is meant, not foretelling things to come, thought this gift was
bestowed upon some, as Agabus, and others in the Christian church; but this, as it is of
an extraordinary nature, so it is not stinted and limited according to the proportion of
faith; but preaching the Gospel is here designed, which is the sense of the word in many
places of Scripture, particularly in 1 Corinthians 13:2. Now such who have this gift of
prophecy, or of opening and explaining the Scriptures, ought to make use of it, and
339
constantly attend toil: "let us prophesy"; diligently prepare for it by prayer, reading and
meditation, and continually exercise it as opportunity offers; nor should any difficulty and
discouragement deter from it...(John Gill).”
Prophets, in the wider Biblical definition, are thus preachers, who see the Word
of God, understand it in the context of his generation, and applies it to his hearers
through the help of the Holy Spirit to enable the hearer not only to hear and understand
the truth but to also be able to correctly apply the outworking of that truth in his life, in
the generation in which he lives. The prophet then is a declarer of the Word of God,
with a special divine insight and understanding of it. Any true Bible preacher can be
said to be a prophet, especially if God gives him those very unusual and applicable
insights and understandings of divine truth that his hearers so desperately need to hear.
6c This is the only mention of “prophecy” in Romans. In this context, it is not foretelling
future events, but preaching and declaring the truth of the Word of God.
6d The idea of 12:6-8 is that whatever ministry God has given for you to do, do it.
Concentrate on it. Find out what God wants you to do and throw yourself into it. And
don’t worry about someone else’s ministry. You have all you can handle just worrying
about the will of God for you instead of worrying about it for someone else. Some
people claim to be very good at figuring out what the will of God is for other people, but
Paul would have little time for these busybodies. Oftentimes, they have little idea what
the true will of God is for them, much less for anyone else.
****************************************************************************************************
12:7 Or ministry,a let us wait on our ministering:a or he that teacheth,present active
participle
on teaching;b-c
7a “ministry”, “ministering” Strong’s #1248 diakonia diakonia; service, ministering,
especially of those who execute the commands of others. We get our English word
Adeacon@ from this, literally, one who serves (not rules!) in a local church. While the
work of a deacon may be in view here, I don’t think is talking about deacons, but rather,
those who serve and minister in the church, regardless if he is a deacon or not.
The pre-King James translations all have this as “an office” or “having an office”.
The ESV uses “service” and “serving”. I like the King James’ rendering of “ministry” and
“ministering” better.
7b “teaching” The office of a Bible teacher is a valid one, as laid down here, although
teachers don’t impress people today in our anti-intellectual day. People want some
black guy ho claims he is an “anointed servant of God for these last days” and then
watch him do a buck-wing dance. But teaching is hard work and especially teaching the
Word of God is a terrific spiritual ministry and gift.
“The gift of prophesying or preaching is subdivided into "teaching" and
"exhorting"; the one belongs to "teachers" or doctors, the other to "pastors"; as the
340
distinction is in Ephesians 4:11 not that different officers and offices are intended, but
different branches of the same office; and one man's talent may lie more in the one, and
another man's in the other; and accordingly each should in his preaching attend to the
gift which is most peculiar to him: if his gift lies in teaching, let him constantly employ
himself in that with all sobriety and "teaching" does not design an office in the school,
but in the church; it is not teaching divinity as men teach logic, rhetoric, and other arts
and sciences, in the schools; but an instructing of churches and the members thereof in
the doctrines of the Gospel, in order to establish and build them up in their most holy
faith; see 1 Corinthians 12:28, it chiefly lies in a doctrinal way of preaching, in opening,
explaining, and defending the doctrines of Christ, as distinct from the practical part of
the ministry of the word, and the administration of ordinances, in which the pastor is
employed as well as in this (John Gill).”
7c I don’t think the Tyndale and Coverdale are correct with rendering this as “let him
take heed to the doctrine”. It is the act of ministry itself that Paul is dealing with here,
not an exhortation regarding the doctrine taught or that he should make sure that true
doctrine is being taught. The other translations follow the King James.
**************************************************************************************************
12:8 Or he that exhorteth,a-present active participle on exhortation: he that giveth,b-present
active participle
let him do it with simplicity;c he that ruleth,d-present middlle/passive participle with
e
diligence; he that sheweth mercy,present active participle with cheerfulness.
8a “exhortation” The old-time Methodists used to have an office of exhorter. He was
not a full-time preacher but was usually a “layman” who usually had little theological
education. They would usually, as the name said, exhort, or encourage their
congregation in basic theological truths or in practical instructions. They tended to be
quite emotional and not always theologically accurate. But Paul is not talking about that
but rather, is talking about a ministry of encouragement.
8b “giveth” People with money can use their money to minister to help the poor or to
help aid and promote the work of the ministry. This can include tithing but Paul
probably is thinking of one who goes beyond the tithe to sacrificial giving. Give to the
Lord's work and to the Lord’s people without worrying about tax-exemption, interest
rates or repayment. This kind of giving must be free from pretense and hypocrisy, not
self seeking, openness of heart manifesting itself by generosity. If you give, you give as
unto the Lord, not for show or the praise of men. If you are going to give, be honest, up
front and transparent about it, not as Ananias and Sapphira were in Acts 5. They gave
hypocritically, for the praise of men, and God struck them dead for it. This has the idea
of giving with a single-minded heart and not as a hypocrite.
8c “simplicity” Strong’s #572 aplothv haplotês; singleness, simplicity, sincerity,
mental honesty. The Tyndale and Coverdale render this as “singleness”, as in
341
“singleness of heart” and “not with a double heart” or as a hypocrite or as one who has
an ulterior motive for giving.
8d “ruleth” Those with ruling authority in the church- pastors and elders, those
heading up specific ministries in the church, like a Sunday School Director, but it could
also apply to any station of authority in life where the Christian may find himself.
8e The ESV uses “zeal” here.
**************************************************************************************************
12:9 Let love be without dissimulation.a Abhorb-present active participle that which is evil;
cleavec-present middle/passive participle to that which is good.
9a “without dissimulation” Let your love and Christian charity be real, genuine and
honest, not a put-on show. “This English word is from a French word of the same
spelling. It is ultimately derived from the same Latin root as ‘dissimuler’ which gave us
‘dissembled’. These words are also remotely related to ‘similar’, from the Latin
‘simulare’, ‘to pretend’. ‘Dissemulation’ is duplicity, hypocrisy or deception (Laurence
Vance, Archaic Words and the Authorized Version, page 106).” I would expect a
modern translation like the ESV to update this rather archaic word as “be genuine”.
Strong’s #505 anupokritov anupokritos; from a a (Strong’s #1) without, and
‘upokrinomai hupokrinomai (Strong’s #5271) to pretend, simulate; unfeigned,
undisguised, sincere.
9b “abhor…” Don’t just hate that which is evil, but loathe it and avoid it at all costs.
Strong’s #655 apostugew apostugeô; from apo apo (Strong’s #575) from, or an
intensive; and stugew stugeô, to hate; to dislike, abhor, have a horror of. Used only
here in the New Testament.
9c “cleave…” Firmly adhere, or glue yourself, to that which is good. This would be the
opposite idea of “abhor”. You would not cleave to something you abhor but would push
away from it in revulsion.
****************************************************************************************************
12:10 Be kindly affectioneda one to another with brotherly love;b in honor
preferringpresent middle/passive participle one another;c
10a “kindly affectioned” This is not the divine love but rather a brotherly, human
affection. This is distinguished from charity. Charity involves actions while brotherly
love implies more of attitude. This word is used for love within and between members
of a family.
10b This is a human based love, as love toward the brethren. Although this is lower
342
than the “agape” love that God loves with, “brotherly love” is not to be despised.
10c “in honor preferring one another” The Christian is not a selfish or self-centered
person, but instead puts the interests if his brother ahead of his own, and honors his
brother before himself. How alien this is to the philosophy of the world, which is “Me
first, you last”! Stop promoting yourself! Stop thrusting yourself forward! Stop trying to
build your personality cult and making yourself something! Let God drag you kicking
and screaming into the limelight. But don’t you dare seek it on your own or for yourself.
The ESV rendering “outdo one another in giving honor” just seems awkward and
not a good suggestion.
****************************************************************************************************
12:11a Not slothfulb in business;c ferventpresent active participle in spirit;d servingpresent
active participle-d
the Lord;e
11a The post-Coverdale translations really tighten up the wordy renderings of the
Tyndale and Coverdale.
11b “not slothful…” Laziness should be foreign to the nature of a Christian. You
certainly should have something to do, either secularly or for the Lord?
The Bishops Bible has the odd word “lither” here, maybe related to “lethargic?”
11c “business” Not just business as in commerce, but whatever it is that you are
doing (that is not sinful)- throw yourself into it. Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do
with all thy might (Ecclesiastes 9:10).
11d “fervent in spirit” Whatever you find to do or what the Lord gives you to do, do it
with all your might. Don’t be halfway or lukewarm about it. Lukewarmness was the
condemnation of the Laodiceans (Revelation 3:16). All divine service should be diligent
and fervent, as the Lord deserves only the best from His people, as the “king’s business
requires haste” (1 Samuel 21:8). What a poor testimony it would be if Paul’s tents were
the worst in the store and Lydia’s purple of the poorest dye.
11e The Lord should always be served with a fervent spirit. To serve Him any other
way, or “slothfully” is to dishonor our Master, Who is certainly worthy of our best and our
highest zeal.
***************************************************************************************************
12:12 Rejoicingpresent active participle in hope;a patientpresent active participle in tribulation;b
continuing instantpresent active participle- c in prayer;c
12a “Rejoicing in hope” Always doing what we can to avoid discouragement, both in
ourselves and in the brethren. This hope is the prospect of glory that is before every
343
believer.
12b “patient in tribulation” What good is Christianity, with over 13,000 promises in
the Bible (as I counted them one year as I read the Bible through) and the indwelling
Holy Spirit if we cannot do this? If Christianity is of any value, then it should be at its
greatest use during the challenging and dark times.
12c “continuing instant in prayer” This has an idea of striving, a fixed determination
to continue on in a thing and not quit. This is a very fitting admonition to prayer. You
can’t continue in something that you have never started. And once we’ve started, we
are not to quit.
Patience in tribulation is supported by prayer. It is difficult to imagine enduring
tribulation properly without much fervent prayer.
“Master Brooks says that the word is a metaphor taken from hunting dogs which
will never give up the game till they have got it. A hunting dog, when in pursuit of its
victim, works itself into full motion, using every limb and muscle to follow as fast as
possible. If you catch a glimpse of it, you will see that it throws itself forward with intense
eagerness—the whole body and soul of the dog is in motion towards one objective—no
portion of him lingers. Not so much as a glance is given to anything else. The whole
creature is instant after the game which it pursues, urgently pressing— hot foot—as we
say, to overtake the prey.
“Now, this is the way in which we are to pray. Prayer as a mere form is but a
mockery. Prayer in a languid, halfhearted manner may be more dishonoring to God than
honoring to Him—we ourselves may be rather injured by lukewarm prayer than
benefited by it. Prevalent prayer is frequently spoken of in Scripture as an agony—
“striving together with me in your prayers.” We frequently speak of it as wrestling and,
we do well, for so it is. In wrestling a man has all his mind as well as all his body
occupied with the desire to overthrow his opponent. Now he bends and twists and then
he strains and stretches—now he uses one foot and then another. He tries his arm and
now his leg. He shifts his ground; he takes up another position and he keeps his eyes
perpetually open lest he should be caught unaware. He has both his hands eager for a
grip; his whole body ready for a throw—the whole man is in his wrestling.
“After such a manner should you pray. The whole of your mind, your memory,
your judgment, your affection, your hopes, your fears and even your imagination must
be concentrated upon this labor of prayer. May the Holy Spirit work in you this
comprehensive ardor, this energy of the whole man! We must go with our whole soul to
God or He will not accept us. It will be ill for us if we are half-hearted, for it is written,
“Their heart is divided; now shall they be found faulty.” “The kingdom of Heaven suffers
violence and the violent take it by force.” We are exhorted to “knock” and, as our model,
we are directed to him who at midnight awakened his slumbering friend. We are
exhorted to be importunate like the widow with the unjust judge. We are to pray as if all
depended upon our praying, though after all, that praying is, in itself, an effect of a
cause which has existed long before! We are to be as importunate as if God were
344
unwilling and to plead as earnestly as if He did not already know far better than we do
what things we need. Earnestness must be present in all our prayers or they will return
to us unanswered—this is reasonable enough. Shall God be expected to give to us that
which we do not value? If we do not value the blessing sufficiently to be eager in
seeking it, is it not right that He should withhold it until we are in a better mind? Are we
to worship God with a divided reverence? Are we to treat Him as though it were quite
enough for Him if we gave Him a stray thought or a halfhearted desire, now and then,
as a sort of compliment? Can we expect that He will receive our sacrifice if we lay no
fire under it? If we have no impetuous earnestness of spirit, can we expect that we shall
be accepted? He loathes the lukewarm! Will He not loathe our prayers?
“See how we deal with our fellow men—if they ask a favor of us and we see that
they care but little about it, we are in no great haste to put ourselves about to do them
the turn. But if they are very pressing, we yield to their entreaties—and so does God, in
His mercy, yield to the entreaties of His people (Charles Spurgeon, “Constant, Instant,
Expectant” in Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, volume 25, sermon 1480).”
**************************************************************************************************
12:13 Distributingpresent active participle to the necessity of saints;a-b-c givenpresent active
participle
to hospitality.d
13a This involves a willingness to help out the brethren with needs that have (materially
and economically). Notice that this obligation extends only to the saints, not to those
outside the church. This is something that has always bothered me, where the unsaved
will contact the local church to ask the church to help them pay the rent or the fuel bill or
whatever. Yet I find myself wondering:
1. Where do you go to church?
2. Why isn’t your church helping you?
3. When is the last time you went to church?
4. Are you a Christian? If not, what obligation do you think God’s people have
toward you?
5. You want us to help you, but you would never think of visiting us, attending
here, or helping us out.
13b The unsaved see the local church as little more than a soup kitchen or a welfare
agency, if not an ATM. I have no problem with helping out people who have a genuine
need, but there are so many lazy people out there who waste what little money they
have on lottery tickets, beer or cable television, that I have no real desire to help them.
And these same people will never think of darkening the door to your church if you help
them- no gratitude at all. They want help from the church but they would never offer
their help to the church. With all the con artists and scammers out there who do nothing
but solicit churches all day, it really makes you cynical. You hate to be but you have no
choice today. I remember in 1994, while pastoring in Mebane, North Carolina, a brother
and I were at the church one Saturday when a car pulled up in our parking lot. Two men
345
got out and gave us their story. They were going from Georgia to New Jersey, had very
little money, and asked if we could give them money for gas and food. Now since we
were the first church off the interstate as you went into town, they would have naturally
hit us first. Why were they making such a long trip with no money? So we took them up
the street and bought them a tank of gas and I told the brother to go down to
McDonalds and buy them some food with church funds. They grumbled a “thank you”.
They wanted the money, not the gas or food. That’s why now in our church in Delaware,
we put in our constitution that you must be a member in good standing for 6 months to
receive any monetary aid from the church.
If there is a genuine need in the church, then the church, and God’s people, are
obligated to do what we can to relieve that need. 1 Timothy 5:8 is very clear about our
obligation to the brethren in these matters. We now maintain a “trustee’s fund” (we’d
call it a “deacon’s fund” except we currently have no deacons in our church- we are that
small) to help out church members in their financial need. We also maintain a food
pantry for brethren who are running low on food.
13c “necessities” This includes what we need, not the object of our greed. If a
brother has a genuine need of help to pay the electric bill, that is included in his
“necessities”. If he is looking for help to make payment on his beach house or his 42inch plasma television, he ought to look elsewhere for such relief.
13d “given to hospitality” This is a qualification for spiritual leadership (1 Timothy
3:2). The “harbor” of the Tyndale and Coverdale are probably older renderings of
“hospitality”.
***************************************************************************************************
12:14 Blessimperative them which persecutepresent active participle you:a bless,imperative and
cursepresent middle/passive imperative not.b
14a This verse assumes the Christian will endure persecution (2 Timothy 3:12). It
should be thought as an odd thing if a Christian has no persecution to endure.
14b “bless and curse not” A hard, bur necessary command, as human pride and ego
will often interfere with the fulfilling of this. We are to treat our enemies better than they
treat you! When the Darwinists flame and insult and hurl all manner of insult at you, do
not respond in kind, but smile and bless. Why stoop to their level? When the world hits
you with both barrels, do not respond as a worldling would, but rather, as a Christian.
No grace is involved or needed to respond with the old nature. You can’t help it if
persecution does come your way, but you can do something about your response
toward it and your attitude in it. After, Romans 3:14 tells us that mouth full of cursing is
the mark of an unregenerate man, and not a characteristic of a Spirit-filled Christian.
This injunction also reminds us of the Lord’s command in Matthew 5:44. The Lord may
be able to get angry and “curse” without sin since His anger is always a righteous anger
346
and His judgments are always just, but we have a very difficult time in avoiding sin and
a bad or selfish attitude in these circumstances.
****************************************************************************************************
12:15 Rejoiceinfinitive that do rejoice,present active participle and weepinfinitive with them that
weep.a-b-present active participle15a Not the other way around- rejoice when they weep or weep when they rejoice.
Proverbs 25:20 certainly applies here to the man who sings songs to a heavy heart.
Sympathy is called for here. When a brother is down, you are right there with him,
trying to help him out. Conversely, when they are up and shouting on the mountaintop,
you get right up there with them and share in their blessing.
15b This verse has the idea of “rejoice with rejoicing people, weep with weeping
people”.
***************************************************************************************************
12:16 Be of the same minda-present active participle one toward another. Mindpresent active
participle
not high things, but condescendpresent middle participle to men of low estate.b-c
present middlle/passive imperative
Be
not wise in your own conceits.
16a “Be of the same mind…” Try to strive for a unity of heart, belief and purpose. Of
course, we will not all think the same way or believe the same things for we cannot and
should not be identical as robots. There will always be disagreements among us. But
when it comes to the things that really matter, we should strive for a unity for the sake of
peace in the Church. That is most important. Must we fight over the color of carpets or
what kind of meat to serve at the next church social? If we cannot agree on the little,
unimportant stuff, then how can we hope to agree on the important things?
The ESV has an inferior rendering of “Live in harmony…” I can still not be of one
mind with a brother and be in harmony (in heart) with him. Paul’s idea is that we think
along the same lines and have the same motivations and desires for the glory of God
and in the defense and promotion of the truth as well as living rightly in the church and
in the community.
16b “mind not high things but condescend…” Ambition would also be involved
here, a worldly, carnal, sinful, proud case of ambition. Of course, this would also forbid
spiritual ambition as well, to get the next biggest church, or to make a name for oneself
or to attain some measure of spiritual fame amongst the brethren.
This goes double for preachers who are busy “building their own empire” and
“promoting their ministries” to the hilt. God never called a man to build an ecclesiastical
empire or to build a super-humongous “church” in order to get his name and face on the
front page of every Christian magazine in the country, but to simply be faithful where he
was planted. This attitude among these preachers sickens God for it speaks of the
347
desire to promote self instead of the Christian virtue of humility.
16c “men of low estate” Those who are below you socially, intellectually and
academically may have better insights and answers on issues and topics than you. We
should not be ashamed to associate with men who are below us on the social scale.
After all, God Almighty lowered and humbled Himself to associate with sinners for 33
years. “Don’t get above your raising” as they say back in the mountains. Don’t try to
impress people and make a name for yourself by dabbling in things that are way above
your head. What’s the point? It’s all you can do to understand your Bible without trying
to be an intellectual big-shot. Humility is required in scholarship. Come down off your
high-horse. You may awe the simple but you will not the wise. Too many weak-minded
men let their Alearning@ get to their heads and they end up getting vain and puffed up.
They then tend to look down upon and belittle anyone who is “not up to their level”. This
is a wicked heart which must be avoided at all costs in the church. Also enclosed here
is a warning to beware of worldly ambition, for this desire for ambition and to make a
name for oneself should also have no place in the Church.
Strong’s #5011 tapeinov tapeinos; not rising far from the ground, lowly, of low
degree, brought low with grief, depressed, lowly in spirit, humble, in a bad sense,
deporting one’s self abjectly, deferring servilely to others.
The ESV has another weak rendering with “associate with the lowly”. You can
“associate with the lowly” and yet not condescend to them. I associate with people who
may be below me in terms of social and economic status, education, convictions and
spirituality all the time, but I can do so with a haughty and arrogant heart attitude toward
them. You cannot “associate” with them as you ought until you first condescend to
them in not looking down to them but esteeming them higher than yourself.
****************************************************************************************************
12:17 Recompensepresent active participle to no man evil for evil.a Providepresent middle participle
things honest in the sight of all men.b-c
17a “Recompense no man evil for evil” For the reason why, see 12:19. The “eye for
an eye” of Exodus 21:23,24 is designed for the civil magistrate and the civil law, not for
personal or individual use. We should not be avenging or revenging ourselves because
when we do it, we do so for selfish motives, as our pride or ego were hurt, or the
offending party did not properly respect us. These are selfish reasons that do not glorify
God. What we do must be for God’s glory, not for our ego. If we cannot “recompense”
to the glory of God, then we must not to do but rather turn that situation over to God and
ask Him to do the recompensing for His glory.
“The motto of the royal arms of Scotland is in direct opposition to this Divine
direction - Nemo me impune lacesset, of which ‘I render evil for evil to every man,’ is a
pretty literal translation. This is both antichristian and abominable, whether in a state or
in an individual (Adam Clarke).”
348
17b “Provide things honest” No shady "under-the-table" or "back-room" deals but be
open and above-board in all you do. A Christian should do no less.
17c “in the sight of all men” All men means just that- before both saint and sinner, for
a good testimony before both. We should treat the brethren well because they are
brethren. We should treat the sinner well for a good testimony.
****************************************************************************************************
12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you,a live peaceablypresent active participle with
all men.b-c
18a The ESV missed the idea (as usual!). It is not “as far as it depends on” us
to live peaceably with all men, but that we should be doing everything we can to live
peaceably with all men. We do our part but we often cannot control the attitude of the
other party. Of course, this “as much as in you is” of the King James also speak to our
heart attitude as to whether we want to live peaceably with some people because it will
often depend on our forgiving someone or overlooking a fault, which is something we do
not always want to do.
18b Paul realized this may be difficult to do at times, not only among the unsaved but
even in the Church! This is why he inserted “if it be possible…” How difficult it can be
at times to dwell at peace with the “brethren”. The old saw rings true:
To live above with saints above
Oh, that will be glory
But to live below with saints we know
That’s a different story
But how good it is when brethren dwell together in unity (Psalm 133:1)! This is to
always be our goal.
18c “all men” With both sinner and saint- it makes no difference. Christians should
not be stirring up trouble. Instead, the blame for trouble and “disturbing the peace”
should always fall on the head of the unsaved, not us.
***************************************************************************************************
12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves,a but rather give place unto wrath;b-c
for it is written,d Vengeance is mine; Ie will repay, saith the Lord.f
19a “avenge not yourselves” See remarks under 12:17. This would have no
application to matters of self-defense, where you must make split-second decisions as
to your actions. This applies more to issues of revenge after the fact, not during. After
you have been wrong, how should you react? You may defend yourself while the crime
349
against you is in progress, but when it is finished, you are not to take matters into your
own hands to punish the guilty party after the fact.
19b Precepts as to conduct under a sense of injury (12:19-21):
1. Passive duty- what not to do when wronged 12:19
2. Active duty- what to do when wronged 12:20
3. General duty- think of the evil done to you as an enemy to be vanquished by
charity 12:21 (H.P. Liddon, Explanatory Analysis of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans,
page 243).
19c “give place to wrath” This is an extremely difficult thing to do because we must
act upon our wounded pride or the perceived slight that made us angry in the first place.
Forsake your wrath and leave it instead to the Lord. Let judgment flow from God, not
you. This passage may have two possible interpretations though:
1. Forsake your wrath and make no place for it in your heart (the interpretation I
hold to).
2. Get out of its way and let it do its work. This is a dangerous interpretation and
runs contrary to the overall spirit of this chapter.
Adam Clarke would make an application that we should not avenge ourselves
but rather give place for the civil magistrate to do his work of punishing the wrongdoers
with the sword. But sometimes, such offenses and wrongs are personal and would fall
within the authority of the civil magistrates.
19d “as it is written” Perfect tense- it has been written and remains written, not to be
changed or altered. It is a completed action with continuous results or the continuance
of an act completed in the past. The components are always a past action and
continuous results. References to the Scriptures like this are often presented in the
perfect tense. "The just shall live by faith" is one of those unalterable truths of
Christianity. This perfect tense in reference to New Testament references to Old
Testament texts is used 62 times in the New Testament, 16 times in Romans (1:17;
2:24; 3:4,10; 4:17; 8:36; 9:13,33; 10:15; 11:8,26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3,9,21). This usage
of the perfect is a strong argument for the verbal and plenary preservation of the
Scripture, as the written Old Testament word stands forever and continues to.
19e Emphatic.
19f “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord “Quoted from Deuteronomy
32:35,41. Vengeance belongs to the Lord and not to us. We have no license to seek
out revenge or to avenge ourselves but we are to allow the Lord to plead on our behalf
instead. If we were to take vengeance on our own volition, we would no doubt sin in so
doing since our motivations would be pride, hate and wounded ego, not divine justice or
the glory of the Lord. We may not take God’s place in such matters and we have no
need to, either. Besides, the Lord can always do a much better job “pleading our
350
cause” to our enemies that we can and He can do so without sin, something we cannot
do. Even this vengeance must be for the glory of God and not to soothe our pride and
our ego, both of which usually demand some form of satisfaction.
“Vengeance is only safe in the hands of a holy God (Revelation 15:4) (Thomas
Robinson, Studies in Romans, 2:195).”
***************************************************************************************************
12:20a Therefore if thine enemyb hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for
in so doing thou shalt heapc coals of fire on his head.d-e
20a Proverbs 25:21 is a good parallel verse to this.
20b It is assumed a Christian will have some enemies, if he is living godly. There is
something very wrong with a professing Christian who has made no enemies for the
gospel’s sake.
20c “heap” Strong’s #4987 swreuw soreuô; to heap together, to heap up, to
overwhelm one with a heap of anything, to load one with the consciousness of many
sins. Used only here and in 2 Timothy 3:6 in the New Testament.
20d Such acts of charity against our enemies will do more to convert him that your
lashing into him and treating him as an enemy or by taking vengeance. This is also a
test of Christian character and maturity. Any sinner can treat his enemy as bad as he
treats him, but only a Spirit-filled Christian can return good for evil. These coals of fire
will melt him down and make him ashamed. Such kindness will either remove his
hatred or demonstrate how irrational it is. Kindness shown to an enemy is the best
revenge.
20e Our Biblical duty to our enemies:
1. Love them (Matthew 5:44; 6:27)
2. Bless them (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:28)
3. Do good to them (Matthew 5:44)
4. Pray for them (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:28)
5. Lend to them (Luke 6:34-36)
6. Be kind to them (Luke 6:35,36)
7. Be merciful unto them (Luke 6:36).
Remember- this applies to our enemies, not God’s. We have no such license to love
God’s enemies, like Satan. Instead, our attitude towards God’s enemies should be as
David’s; “Do not I hate them that hate thee, O Lord?” (Psalm 139:21,22). David did not
hate those who hated him but rather hated the enemies of his God. To hate our own
enemies is a sign of pride but to hate God’s enemies shows that we are jealous for His
glory.
***************************************************************************************************
351
12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.a-b
21a We are to overcome the force of evil with an even stronger force- that of good. It
was said of Thomas Cranmer, ATo get a favor, do him a wrong.@ Cotton Mather was
never content till he had bestowed a benefit on every man who had, in any way, done
him an injury.
We must either overcome evil or it will overcome us. Warfare is declared and
there is no cease fire, so we must do battle. But this is an odd war. We overcome the
evil not by evil or by the normal weapons of warfare but by doing good and being good.
“Good” is the only weapon available to us in this conflict for we are not to stoop so low
as to use the same weapons and strategies as our foe. Worldlings confront evil with
evil but we must fight a magnificent battle, with a song in the heart and a sword in the
hand (Psalm 150). We cannot fight as a natural man but rather, as a saint under the
banner of “holiness unto the Lord”. We are to be militant but we are to also be
magnificent! We must take care not to lose our hearts as we win the battles.
It is only to these overcomers are the promises of Revelation 2 and 3 (to “he that
overcometh”) given.
21b “overcome evil with good” This verse summarizes the rules for the Christian in
his daily intercourse with general society around him, being chiefly pagan (12:14-21).
Again, all of this flows out of his sanctification from 12:1,2. When we are right with God,
we will be right with out brethren and with our fellow man. The carnal Christian and the
backslider is not in such a state of grace with God or man and the unsaved man is
contrary to both God and man.
352
Romans Chapter 13
The burnt offering life also involves being a good citizen and having a right relationship
with and understanding of human government. This is part of the practical elements of
the Christian life that can only be fulfilled after a personal burnt offering of the life has
been made.
This is one of the most important chapters in the Bible in a practical sense since it deals
with our relationship with the State. Human government is usually anti-Christian and
evil, yet we Christians must live under such governments. How do we? How do we
deal with an evil government? Is resistance to the State ever justified? If so, under
what circumstances? When can we disobey government without sinning?
We could outline this section as follows:
1. Human government established by God 13:1
2. Our relationship to human government 13:2,5-7
3. Government’s obligation toward us 13:3,4
A Summation of 13:1-7 regarding Christian Political Theory:
1. Civil government is ordained by God and is supported by Him. Thus,
government in and of itself is not evil as it comes from God. It was initiated after
the Flood in Genesis 9 when capital punishment was mandated, a penalty that is
executed by the State. Government usually degenerates into a evil when it
forgets its ordained role and responsibility and when it forgets to acknowledge
God.
2. Government is one of the three spheres of human activity:
A. Home. This is the highest as it was the first one established, in the
Garden of Eden when Eve was created.
B. Government, which was next instituted after the Flood.
C. Church. You can include the synagogue or tabernacle/temple services
here, as we will not limit this only to the New Testament church.
3. Fallen man must have some form of government. Man cannot rule himself
without law. The book of Judges illustrates what happens when “there is no king
in Israel” and when “every man does that which is right in his own eyes”. The
depravity of fallen man guarantees than any form of self-rule will end in failure.
Fallen man has enough difficultly ruling over himself. How much more these
difficulties if he was left to his own devices and was made a law unto himself.
4. God ordains government, both good and bad
A. Pharaoh and Egypt- Romans 9:17
B. Old Babylon in the book of Daniel
C. Darius/Cyrus of Persia- Isaiah 44:28; 45:1
D. The Philistines
E. The Assyrians, who carried the Ten Northern Tribes captive
F. Roman Empire
353
1. At no time did either Jesus or Paul ever suggest that the Roman
Empire was not a legitimate government, nor did either one
advocate revolution of that the Church attempt to overthrow Rome.
Neither of them got involved with the politics of the day. The
closest the Lord ever got to it was when He was asked whether it
was lawful to give tribute to Caesar. Even then, He did not initiate
the discussion.
2. Christ did acknowledge Rome’s ruling authority in Matthew
22:21.
5. Rebellion against government is forbidden except under certain
circumstances, when obeying it would result in sin, or would pit the State against
God, or if we are forced to choose between the State and God. God does nbot
expect us to obey every government and every law it passes without any
reservation. Examples of such resistance:
A. Exodus 1:15-21 the Hebrew midwives disobeying Pharaoh, and God
approving of it
B. Exodus 4-13 Moses opposing Egyptian slavery
C. Resistance to tyrants in the book of Judges by Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar,
Deborah, Gideon, Jephthah and Samson
D. Elijah before Ahab and Jezebel
E. Jehoiada before Athaliah- 2 Chronicles 23
F. “We ought to obey God rather than man” Acts 5:29.
G. There was a time when Christianity was illegal in the Roman Empire,
yet the Church ignored that law and continued their activities. It is obvious
in this case that the State over-stepped its authority. This would be
repeated throughout Church History, as the Roman Catholic states and
later some of the Protestant states during the Reformation would outlaw
(Ana)Baptist activities. We would even see this in Colonial
Massachusetts. Did they have a Biblical right for forbid Baptist churches
or activities in their colony? What about in Virginia, where the Anglican
Church State required Baptist preachers to be licensed? What shall we
say of the Underground Churches in the old Soviet Union, where it was
illegal for them to even exist?
6. We must obey the State in all lawful commands (where do not have to sin in
giving such obedience) , including paying taxes
A. Jesus rendered unto Caesar, despite the fact that Rome was not a
godly empire- Matthew 22:21
7. Christians may serve in an ungodly State without sin. In this case, the old
Anabaptist groups were wrong when they opposed any Christian serving in the
government for any reason. Their reason was that no Christian should serve a
government that was involved in religious persecution (namely against them) and
they had a good point. But overall, it is no sin for a Christian to serve in a
government.
A. Nehemiah- Media/Persia
354
B. Esther- Media/Persia
C. Daniel- Babylon and Media/Persia
D. Cornelius- Rome
E. Offices may be held by Christians as long as sin or unfaithfulness to
God is required
1. See Daniel 1,3,4,6
2. There may arise a problem if the taking of an oath is required.
This would also involve serving in the military, where one must
swear an oath to the Constitution, despite the fact that the
American Constitution is not a Christian document. Christians are
forbidden from swearing such oaths (Matthew 5:34-36; James
5:12).
8. Characteristics of a Godly, Biblical State
A. Built on Biblical law
B. Acknowledges Lordship and Kingship of Christ (this the United States
does not do as there is no acknowledgment of God whatsoever in the
Constitution. The mention of “nature and Nature’s God” by Thomas
Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence is so vague that it could
apply to any “god”.
C. Punishes evildoers
D. Keeps the peace
E. Requires its magistrates to be good ministers of God
The more I consider it, the more cynical I become about human government under
fallen man and political parties, especially the pseudo-Christian and pseudoconservative “Republican” party than so many Christians give almost an idolatrous
allegiance to. I gave up on the Republicans in 1996 as they are not a Christian or a
truly “conservative” party. They are in reality little different than the very liberal
Democratic Party. There are not too many places for the Bible-believing Christian to put
his support when it comes to politics. Christians in other countries will find themselves
in a similar predicament.
****************************************************************************************************
109. The Christian and the State 13:1-7
13:1 Let every soula be subjectb-present imperative unto the higher powers.c-d For there
ispresent no powerd but of God: the powersd that bepresent active participle arepresent
ordainede-perfect passive participle of God.
1a “every soul” Every person- Christian and non-Christian, citizen and non-citizen.
The “clergy” are not exempt from the civil magistrate, nor are they elevated over it. In
civil matters, the civil magistrate outranks the preacher, but in moral and spiritual
matters, the preacher has more authority.
355
1b “be subject to” Be in submission to. This does not mean that you must agree with
them or support their policies. Rather, it deals with obeying them as long as you do not
need to sin in so doing.
1c “higher powers” These “powers” are human civil government, by the context of this
chapter. Government is called a “higher power” since it id the strongest common
authority established among men to govern their society and interpersonal relationships
and conduct. Government is a “higher” power but not the “highest”, for it must also
answer to God and be conformed to His laws.
Human government is ordained of God because man must be ruled. He simply
cannot be left to his own devices, to do that which is right in his own eyes. This is
because man is a sinner and does not have the nature, the character or the knowledge
to rule himself properly under God. Libertarianism can only go so far, politically. The
foundations of civil government are laid down in the Noahic Covenant in Genesis 9 and
are greatly expanded upon in the case laws of the Pentateuch. God allows man to rule
himself to some degree, but along the lines of divinely revealed laws and principles.
God sets up these human rulers and grants them the authority they need to keep the
peace, maintain order and punish evildoers. These three actions are all that God
authorizes for human governments. When human government goes beyond these
duties, trouble is the result. In Romans 13, Paul defines what qualifies as a godly
government and a godly ruler and what the responsibilities of believers, yea, all men,
are to such governments.
Governments that are ordained of God automatically become responsible to be
God’s civil ministers in the earth. This obligates them, as such ministers, to obey and
enforce the laws of God that they have been entrusted with. Any “ordained minister” of
governmental authority that fails in this becomes a poor steward who will have his
stewardship removed and will be judged accordingly. There are many Biblical
examples of this:
1. Moses refused to obey Pharaoh.
2. Elijah refused to obey Ahab.
3. Elisha had no respect for Jehoram in 2 Kings 3:14 although he did respect
Jehoshaphat.
4. Daniel had no respect for Belshazzar in Daniel 5.
5. Amos did not stop preaching, despite orders to go preach elsewhere in Amos
7.
6. Jeremiah was in constant trouble with the authorities.
7. The apostles refused to stop preaching, although ordered to by the Sanhedrin
in Acts 4 and 5.
A Christian’s obligation to obey such an unfaithful minister is limited. He is still
to obey all Biblically-lawful commands but since the Christian finds himself under the
authority of a rebellious and unfaithful minister, his obligations would end right there.
Overall, a Christian is not to support such a governmental authority and he would be
justified in doing all he can to overthrow such an authority (by lawful and Biblical means
and methods) and to give only limited (or the bare minimum required) support and
356
allegiance to it. This is why so few genuine Christians would vote or would support their
governments (regardless of level- state, federal, county…). Nearly all human
government on earth is unfaithful and rebellious to the law of God today and this is
especially true in the United States and in Canada. Why vote? You are only
encouraging and offering support for an unfaithful minister. When you vote for an
unbiblical government, you are offering your recognition of such an establishment. You
wouldn’t support an unfaithful pastor in your church, so why support an unfaithful civil
magistrate? I began to learn this lesson after the presidential election in 1996. That
was the last year I voted Republican. I realized that both Democrats and Republicans
were grossly corrupt and unfaithful to the law of God. Why vote for either one? Why
vote at all? How many genuinely Christian candidates are there on your ballot? Voting
is, in essence, a validation on the part of the one voting of the process, the Constitution
that sanctions that process (and the Constitution is not a Christian or a Biblical
document) and the candidates running. If there was a genuine Christian candidate
running for office, he ought to be supported, but 99.9% of the time, the Christian has no
such option. His choices are between the Democratic Heathen and the Republican
Heathen.
I would summarize this as “When the Government tries to take away what God
has given, to forbid what God has allowed or allows what God has forbidden, it is then
time to pray about how you will react against your magistrates, even to the point of
disobedience.”
It makes no difference if we are under a "good" or "bad" government. The
government we find ourselves under was installed by God and are ordained of Him.
This includes any form of government- communistic, democratic, socialistic,
dictatorship, monarchy. You obey it as long as you do not have to sin in so doing. You
obey it as long as they do not try to usurp the authority of God and the Bible in the life of
the Church and the Christian. The point of contention them is “What do we do when the
State does cross that line? Do we resist? What form will that resistance take? And
how far do we take it?”
The slave must, of necessity, do the bidding of his master. The power is unjust. It
may be tyrannically exercised. It is, in its very nature, despotic. But the victim of wrong
has, for the time, no alternative. By obedience alone can he secure exemption from
greater suffering. So the unhappy subject of arbitrary civil rule. He is beneath the iron
heel of the despot. He must obey. But it is a forced obedience, wrung from him by the
irresistible might of the tyrant’s scepter. So also, the Christian may be compelled to yield
a kind of submission to overwhelming power. He is in its hand. The sword is ready to
enforce the mandates of unholy authority. The salve, and the subject of despotic civil
rule, alike submit; but both for the same reasonCthe impossibility of escape, or of
successful resistance.
Why is government called a “higher power?” There are three spheres of human
activity- Church, Home and State. Is Paul placing the State above the Church and
Home? This is very unlikely. But humanly speaking, the government does tend to wield
the most secular power and only it has the sword by which to punish evildoers. The
State tends to have more earthly authority than does the Church of Home.
357
1d “higher powers” In this context, the higher power was the anti-Christian Roman
empire.
“higher powers” and “power” Strong’s #1849 exousia exousia; power of
choice, liberty of doing as one pleases, leave or permission, physical and mental power,
the ability or strength with which one is endued, which he either possesses or exercises,
the power of authority (influence) and of right (privilege), the power of rule or
government (the power of him whose will and commands must be submitted to by
others and obeyed), the power of judicial decisions, of authority to manage domestic
affairs, jurisdiction, one who possesses authority, a ruler, a human magistrate, the sign
of regal authority, a crown
1e “ordained” This is in the perfect, showing they were ordained in the past and
remain so ordained now. That situation will not change as God will always ordain some
form of civil government among men.
God has set up, established and empowered human government on earth, even
ungodly and persecuting ones, for a reason. Even communist governments or
dictatorships are allowed to rule only according to the will of God. God could destroy
such governments in a heartbeat (as the rapid downfall of the Soviet Union in 1991) or
he could allow them to continue for a season (Soviet Union, 74 years, Nazi Germany,
12 years...). Why He allows such governments to even exist, or continue, is not always
revealed to us, but verses like this assure us that they continue only within the will of
God and do so for a purpose. To suppose otherwise is to question the wisdom of God
as well as His political plans for man during these Times of the Gentiles.
“The necessity for this section is traceable to the widespread feeling of irritation
against the Roman government among the Jewish populations. To the Jew the
theocracy seemed to be the only legitimate form of government...The Messianic
promise, as understood by the Jews, was hostile to the claims of any pagan
government...Judas the Gaulonite had founded a sect which held that it was unlawful to
obey earthly rulers...some converts from Judaism may have brought with them their
revolutionary sympathies and projects into the Church of Christ...But probably the
reason for the paragraph is to be found more precisely in the Ebionite conception that
the power that governs the world, and acts through the civil magistracy is devilish. The
belonged to the dualistic tendency in Ebionistism (H.P. Liddon, Explanatory Analysis of
St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, page 246).” The Jews believed they had no king but
God and thus were not accountable to human kings. The Pharisees promoted and
defended this view.
****************************************************************************************************
13:2 Whosoever therefore resistetha-b-present middle/passive participle-a the power,c
resistethb-perfect the ordinanced of God: and they that resistperfect active participle shall
receivefuture middle to themselves damnation.e
2a “resisteth” Resistence by:
358
1. Disobedience
2. Rufusal to support by paying taxes and tribute
3. Attempting to overthrow
It is rebellion against a God-ordained authority if a Christian refuses to submit to
his government in lawful things. The question then arises "What if in obeying my
government I am forced to sin against God?" If a choice develops between obeying
God or man, the choice is clear- we should obey God rather than man (Acts 5:29).
Whenever government tries to force a Christian into sin, it crosses over the boundaries
God set for it and strays into the authority of the Church or the family. But if you set
yourself against a God-ordained authority, you had better have a very good reason for
doing so. Such reasons and justifications exist, but you had just better understand what
they are.
2b Two Greek words are used for the two uses of the English word “resisteth” in this
verse:
1. First usage- Strong’s #498 antitassomai antitassomai; from anti anti
(Strong’s #473) against, or in the stead of, and tassw tassô (Strong’s #5021); to range
in battle against, to oppose one’s self, resist
2. Second usage- Strong’s #436 anyisthmi anthistemi; from anti anti (Strong’s
#473) against, or in the stead of, and ‘isthmi histemi (Strong’s #2476) to cause or make
to stand, to place, put, set; to set one’s self against, to withstand, resist, oppose, to set
against
2c “power” Strong’s #1849 exousia exousia; power of choice, liberty of doing as one
pleases, leave or permission, physical and mental power, the ability or strength with
which one is endued, which he either possesses or exercises, the power of authority
(influence) and of right (privilege), the power of rule or government (the power of him
whose will and commands must be submitted to by others and obeyed), the power of
judicial decisions, of authority to manage domestic affairs, jurisdiction, one who
possesses authority, a ruler, a human magistrate, the sign of regal authority, a crown
2d “ordinance” Strong’s #1296 diatagh diatagê; a disposition, arrangement,
ordinance. This is a late Greek word, used in Romans 13:2 and in Acts 7:53.
2e “receive to themselves damnation” Because rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft (1
Samuel 15:23). This is a judicial sentence but a divine condemnation would surely
follow.
The ESV has the weakest rendering with “judgment”. The other translations use
“condemnation” or “damnation”.
****************************************************************************************************
13:3 For rulersa arepresent not a terror to good works, but to the evil.b-c Wiltpresent
thou then not be afraidpresent middle infinitive of the power?d doimperative that which is good,
and thou shalt havefuture praise of the same:e
359
3a Verses 3 and 4 list the Civil Magistrate’s obligations and responsibilities toward the
people to whom they have been placed over:
1. They are to terrorize evil doers, not lawful citizens 13: 3
2. They are to be God's minister for good 13:4. I wonder how many politicians
realize this? They are "servants", or "diakonos", in the Greek, the same word as for
"deacon". Government is supposed to serve its citizens, not the other way around!
3. They are to execute wrath in God's stead against him who does evil.
Government is to reward the law-abiding citizen by ministering unto him for good (best
done by leaving him alone) and to punish the criminal who disturbs and threatens both
society and the law-abiding citizen. This principle is first given back in Genesis 9:6
3b Thus, an unfaithful and evil government can be identified by:
1. It terrorizes the good, law-abiding citizens and rewards evildoers
2. They minister evil, not good.
3. The magistrates do not function as the ministers of God for good
The first sign of an evil state is where the good law-abiding citizens are
persecuted while the evil lawbreakers are unmolested. Any state that persecutes
Christians falls into the category of an evil state, since Christians tend to make the best
and most productive citizens, even in non-Christian and anti-Christian societies.
But this verse is a double-edged sword, for it would also condemn “Christian”
states (sacral states actually) that persecute other Christians. Calvin’s Geneva and
Puritan Massachusetts are prime examples. These “Christian” sacral states persecuted
other Christians who disagreed with them theologically. The murder of Michael
Servetus is an eternal blot on the name of Calvin. The persecution of the Baptists by
Massachusetts and colonial Virginia was evil and unscriptural. The Reformation states
in Europe that persecuted the Anabaptists can never be justified. Maybe that’s one
reason why such persecuting states did not endure for long, as no doubt God would
have judged such an evil “Christian” state. The persecuted groups simply desired the
right to worship and believe as they pleased, but their non-conformity was a threat to
the sacralistic governments and so they must either conform to the State Church
monstrosity or be destroyed, for the good of the “unity” of the “Church”.
This is where the real issue boils down to- what exactly is the role of the State?
Governments are instituted among men. That fact cannot be denied. Thus, human
government in and of itself is not evil or sinful. But that government has very specific
limits imposed on it in terms of its authority. Basically, the State is to maintain order,
punish evildoers and generally keep the peace. That’s about it. The modern idea of the
leviathan state is totally foreign to the Bible (either testament). Sinful man must have
some degree of government over him, but 99.99% of the time, it will be other sinful men,
who are not in submission to the Word of God, who will be in authority over those men.
And when that happens, the fallen nature of man takes over and what might start as a
limited, biblical government turns into an iron-fisted dictatorship. The modern State is
based and founded upon power and such power always corrupts. The Biblical model
was that civil service was exactly that- service. The magistrate served God first and
360
then the people second. It was a ministry more than a career. That was radical idea in
the early years of the American republic. One reason why those who served in the
House of Representatives (the “people’s body” of government) for only two years was
that the Founding Fathers assumed that Representatives would only serve for a few
years and then voluntarily step down. They did not anticipate career politicians who
served only to build and further their own power and that of the State.
So what do we do when we have a State that is bent to evil? One that is
obsessed with expanding its own power and bringing its population under its iron heel?
A State that devolves into a Nanny State that is intent on micromanaging your life? One
that is taking away your liberties rather than defending them? That State is a minister of
evil, not of good. The State then becomes an unfaithful minister. That is when the
Christian would have a basis to resist such a government.
I hold to a minimalist government and State, the smallest form of government
required to fulfill its Biblical mandate is the best. The smaller the State, the more
Biblical it is and the more likely that the people living under such a government will
enjoy personal liberty. I am not anti-State in the concept of the State for God
established human government and we must have some form of it as fallen man simply
cannot rule over himself properly.
3c “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.” When you fear your
government for doing well or for following God and His law, then you are living under an
unbiblical government that is unfaithful to the God that ordained it! In those cases
where Christians have been able to withdraw from intolerable situations, no sin is
involved. The Huguenots fled from France to England, and the Puritans from England to
America, for freedom of conscience. Christ said, "If they persecute you in one city, flee
to another." Escape is sometimes possible, and is not rebellion, but merely selfpreservation. But where could persecuted Christians flee today?
3d “be afraid of the power” Evildoers should fear the sword of the magistrate, since
the godly magistrate will act as God’s appointed agent on earth to bring judgment tp that
offender. The peaceful law-abiding citizens should have nothing to fear in a godly
society. The operative word is “should” since it doesn’t always work out that way.
3e “do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same” In an ideal,
godly state, this would be the case. But all bets are off in an ungodly state, or in a state
that does not identify with the Bible and that does not base its government or legal code
on Scripture (like the United States).
*************************************************************************************************
13:4 For he ispresent the ministera of God to theeb for good.c But if thou dopresent
subjunctive
that which is evil, be afraid;imperative for he bearethpresent not the swordd in
vain: for he ispresent the ministera of God, a revengere to execute wrath upon him
that doethpresent active participle evil.f
361
4a “minister” (both uses) This is the same word as “deacon”, showing that the civil
magistrate is a minister of God who is to serve his people, not to rule over them as a
lord. This shows that the civil magistrate is appointed by God and serves at God’s
pleasure. What an awesome responsibility this is, then, for God will certainly judge an
unfaithful minister/civil magistrate.
A minister of God! We must note the context when Paul wrote that- Nero was
Caesar! Nero was a “minister of God” and was to be obeyed and honored in all lawful
commands and laws. How difficult that can be, especially with the devil incarnate on
the throne. But God put him there and maintains them there within his will, and to rebel
against that is to rebel against God’s will. A very fine line must be walked if the
Christian finds himself having to take a stand against such a ruler. Yes, he is to “obey
God rather than man” but there are times when to obey man is to obey God, if that
context is governmental. If Paul could urge Christians to recognize Nero as a “minister
of God” and obey his laws and pay his tributes, then can’t we do the same today for out
governors and presidents, who, as bad as they might be, are nowhere near as horrible
as a Roman Caesar was?
4b “to thee” The magistrate is to minister to us for our good and be the servant of the
people, not the other way around.
4c “for good” he mark of a godly magistrate, where an unfaithful one would be
promoting and doing evil to those in his charge.
The other traditional translations all render this “For he is the minister of God for
thy wealth” but I would think more than economic issues are at stake here unless
“wealth” has a larger, classical, definition here.
4d “sword” Only the State has the sword by which to punish evildoers. Neither the
Family nor the Church may punish wrongdoers in such a manner. The sword here
represents the divinely ordained authority-sphere of the State, including the authority to
inflict punishment for civil offenses, especially capital punishment, a right that neither
the State or the Family possesses.
4e “revenger” The magistrate is thus called, for he is to avenge the wrongs and
injustices committed upon the victim, the weak, the poor, the widow, the orphan,
anyone. Instead of the victim playing vigilante and taking justice into his own hands, he
is supposed to turn his case over to the magistrate, who would exact justice for him.
4f “to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” The duty of a faithful magistrate- to
punish evil and to serve as a deterrent to evildoers. A magistrate becomes unfaithful
and unbiblical when good men and law-abiding men are afraid of him or when he
persecutes such men.
************************************************************************************************
362
13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject,present passive infinitive not only for wrath, but
also for conscience sake.a-b-c
5a We are to obey government not just to stay out of trouble but also to preserve a
clear conscience. It's a bad testimony for Christians to be opposing the government
every time it tries to do something. The Jehovah Witnesses are a perfect example as
they refuse to give allegiance to any government, good or bad. They got so bad and
annoying at one point that Kenya expelled them for their anti-government activities. The
Jews were terrible citizens, using Deuteronomy 17:14,15 as proof texts. This soured
the Romans concerning the testimony of the Jews.
The King James may be the one translation that is the least clear here, since
they did not expand on the “wrath”. The other translations correctly bring out the idea
that one reason why we obey the governmental authorities for fear of punishment if we
do not.
5b “for conscience sake” The Jews knew of no other motivation for submission to the
Roman government other than fear of punishment. Christians were told submit
because it was the right thing to do.
5c Subjection to magistrates to be made a matter of conscience:
1. As subjection to God’s institution and His own command
2. As enjoined and exemplified by Christ Himself- Matthew 22:21; 26:63,64
3. As a due return for benefits received
4. As an example to others and for the benefit of society
5. As a testimony in favor of Christianity (Thomas Robinson, Studies in Romans:
Expository and Homiletical Commentary, 2:206).
****************************************************************************************************
13:6 For for this cause paypresent ye tributea also: for they arepresent God's
ministers,b attending continuallypresent active participle upon this very thing.c
6a “pay ye tribute” Taxation was such a hot topic in Paul's day that he devotes two
verses to it- must a Christian pay taxes to support a pagan government that is not
fulfilling its God-appointed duties by persecuting Christians? Paul says "Yes", as does
the Lord (Matthew 17:24-27; 22:17-21). Christ recognized Caesar's authority in
collecting taxes despite his ungodly government and He paid them. Taxation is due to
government because they are God's ministers, even if they are ungodly and are
unaware of their “deacon” status before God. We may have to render unto Caesar but
the Bible is very clear about how Caesar is to behave and fulfill his office.
The Christians in the Roman Empire had a good reputation in this context in that
they did pay their taxes.
“tribute” Strong’s #5411 forov phoros; tribute, the annual tax levied upon
houses, lands, and persons, property taxes
363
6b “ministers” Strong’s #3011 leitourgov leitourgos; from laos laos (Strong’s #2992)
people and ergon ergon (Strong’s #2041) work; public minister, a servant of the state, a
minister, servant, one who works for the people. This is a different word for “minister”
as used in 13:4, as this has more of a governmental/public servent meaning and not so
much religious.
6c The taxation and tribute are used to support the magistrate in the administration of
his duties. Unfortunately, the State today uses taxes as a form of social engineering to
affect behavior and ecomonic and social activity.
*************************************************************************************************
13:7 Rendera-b-aorist imperative therefore to all their dues:c-d tributed to whom tributed is
due; customd to whom custom;d feard to whom fear;d honord to whom honor.d-e-f
7a "Render" has the thought of paying taxes out of public obligation as a citizen and
not as a show of support for the government. Taxes are something we pay because we
have to, not because we want to.
7b Not only taxes but we are also to render:
1. Tribute, your standard tax.
2. Custom, which is tax on merchandise, commerce and business transactions
3. Fear, reverence and respect to those in positions of authority
4. Honor. You may not necessarily honor the man but you must honor the office.
7c Unfortunately, Paul doesn’t directly deal with the thorny issues about government,
such as:
1. What should the Christian do in times of revolution?
2. Must a Christian submit to the State if the State commands activities that go
contrary to the Word of God?
We certainly wish that Paul would have expounded more on these matters!
7d As Christian citizens of whatever nation we find ourselves, we are liable by the
apostle to render the following to the civil rulers:
“dues” Strong’s #3782 ofeilh opheilê; that which is owed, a debt. Not found in
Classical Greek. The older traditional translations render this as “duty”.
“tribute” Strong’s #5411 forov phoros; tribute, the annual tax levied upon
houses, lands, and persons, property taxes
“custom” Strong’s #5056 telov telos; from “teleô”, meaning “to pay”; end,
termination, the limit at which a thing ceases to be (always of the end of some act or
state, but not of the end of a period of time), the last in any succession or series, toll,
custom, indirect tax on goods and merchandise that is used for public ends.
“fear” or respect for the office.
“honor” for those in the office. We do not honor them personally or individually,
for they may be moral reprobates, but they are still entitled to the honor due their office.
364
7e Summary of the Christian’s duty to the State:
1. Be subject to civil government
2. Fear and respect the civil rulers
3. Do good
4. Pay your taxes
5. Render dues to all men
6. Honor the civil rulers
7. Pray for civil rulers
8. Obey the laws
9. Do not curse the rulers (Ecclesiastes 10:20)
10. Work for peace
7f Daniel is the best Biblical example of how to conduct oneself under a heathen and
anti-Christian government as he fulfilled these commands very well in a diffucult
situation under several ungodly administrations.
*************************************************************************************************
110. The Christian and Debt 13:8
13:8 Owepresent no man any thing,a but to loveinfinitive one another:b for he that
lovethpresent active participle another hath fulfilledperfect the law.c
8a This is an exhortation to stay out of debt as much as is possible and to stay out of
non-monetary debts to other people. In other words, try to live without these kind of
entanglements as much as possible. This is very difficult to do in our day, age and
economic system, but avoidance of debt when possible is always the wisest course.
This also goes for churches. Blessed is that congregation that can say they owe no
man anything!
8b “love one another” Love is the only thing that we should owe one another. This
should be our debt to each other. Paul does not say “loveth himself”. It takes little
grace to love yourself but divine help to love your neighbor. This is one debt we are all
in but that we can never fully discharge.
8c “for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.” How many people don’t
understand this! When they see the Law, all they can see is “Can’t do this, don’t do
that”. Most people look at the Law negatively, as if God gave it to us to punish us or to
make us unhappy. But Paul sees the Law in a different light, that it is founded upon and
fulfilled by love, not duty or works. All the Ten Commandments are based on love. The
first four commandments deal with our love toward God while the final six deal with our
love for our neighbor. A man who loves God properly and who thus loves his neighbor
properly, is doing more to fulfill the law than any legalistic works-based Pharisee.
365
And notice the perfect tense, signifying a once-and-for-all finished action.
Fulfilling the law is done not by ritualistic and legalistic observances, but by manifesting
love and putting the commandments into action in our everyday lives. Do this and you
will have fulfilled the very spirit of the law once and for all.
Also see Galatians 5:14 regarding this.
****************************************************************************************************
111. The Christian and the Law 13:9
13:9a For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery,b-future Thou shalt not kill,c-future Thou
shalt not steal,d-future Thou shalt not bear false witness,e-future Thou shalt not covet;ffuture
and if there be any other commandment,g it is briefly comprehendedh-present
passive
in this saying, namely, Thou shalt lovefuture thy neighbori as thyself.j-k
9a Notice that Commandments 6-10 are repeated here (although not in the order given
in Exodus 20/Deuteronomy 5), showing that they are still valid in the New Testament
dispensation. The only Commandment not to be repeated in the New Testament is the
Fourth, about keeping the Sabbath. This makes sense, since the Sabbath is a sign for
Israel, was never given to the Gentiles and is part of the ceremonial law, which was
fulfilled by Christ on the cross. The Sabbath would still be binding on a Jew today, since
it was given to him as a covenant sign that has not been repealed, but it was never
binding on a Gentile. And obviously, the Sabbath is not Sunday- it never has been and
never will be. It is Saturday. In reality, the New Testament gives no regulations
regarding “Sunday observances” except by giving the historical example of the church
meeting on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7) and giving our offerings on the first day
of the week (1 Corinthians 16:1).
9b “adultery” Prohibiting extra-marital affairs and any other form of sexual impuritity.
A repeat of the 7th commandment (Exodus 20:14). It is also the first such sin mentioned
here and in Galatians 5:19 in relation to the works of the flesh.
9c “kill” Any form of pre-meditated homicide forbidden, but not killing in self-defense or
in time of war. A repeat of the 6th commandment (Exodus 20:13). The ESV renders
this as “murder” as is the only one to do so in the translations above.
9d “steal” Private property must be respected. This one sentence completely
overthrows both socialism and communism, which are based on theft of private
property. A repeat of the 8th commandment (Exodus 20:15).
9e “false witness” Lying and slander prohibited, especially in a court of law. A repeat
of the 9th commandment (Exodus 20:16). For some reason, many modern versions will
omit this phrase, including the ESV.
366
9f “covet” This is the root of just about all sin, covetousness and selfishness. A repeat
of the 10th commandment (Exodus 20:17). The Tyndale renders this as “desire”
(probably in a very strong way) and the Coverdale and Bishops havw “lust”, so this is a
very strong word.
9g “any other commandment” Paul is not limiting his remarks just to the Ten
Commandments, but to any other Biblical and divine command and law that is out there.
9h Or “summed up”.
9i “thy neighbor” In reality, this includes all men, as seen in the Parable of the Good
Samaritian. This is repeated from Matthew 19:19; 22:39, Mark 12:31 (the second
“Great Commandment”). Paul also mentions this in Galatians 5:14 as does James in
James 2:8.
9j The Law is not a collection of Adon’t do that and don’t do this@ given by God to make
us miserable, but is rather a way to show our love for God and our neighbor. By
fulfilling these commandments, we are showing our love for God and man. In the first 4
commandments, our love for God can be demonstrated by not worshiping idols,
acknowledging Him as the only true God, not taking His name in vain and respecting
His day. The last 6 commandments are all directed at demonstrating love toward our
horizontal, human relations. Thus, when we break a commandment, we are
demonstrating our hatred for either God or man by harming them in one way or another.
Thus, the whole duty of man is to love God and then to love our neighbor.
9k “love thy neighbor as thyself” Every man loves himself. We are to love God and
our neighbor more than we love ourselves. This is unnatural and is not easy, and is
only made possible by the indwelling power and love of Christ.
***************************************************************************************************
112. The Christian and Love 13:10
13:10a Love workethpresent middle no illb to his neighbor: therefore love is the
fulfilling of the law.c
10a This verse sounds very much like 1 Corinthians 13 in a nutshell, so much so that
the Bishops Bible used “charity” instead of love but the other translations use “love”.
10b “no ill” Does not inflict harm or damage.
10c “love is the fulfilling of the law. Not in or by the legalistic keeping of the
commandments, Pharisee-style, but rather by putting the commandments into effect in
our everyday lives by displaying love toward God and our neighbor.
**************************************************************************************************
367
113. Exhortation to Soberness 13:11-13
13:11 And that,a knowingperfect active participle the time, that now it is high time to
awakeaorist passive infinitive out of sleep:b for now is our salvationc nearer than when we
believed.d
11a Emphatic.
11b “sleep” Spiritual sleep, slumber and stupidity. We are to be aroused out of our
slumber just as the Roman soldier was awakened early every day by the blast of a
trumpet. This spirit of spiritual sleep is the natural condition of the sinner, who is
oblivious to his damnation and judgment. Evangelism is the attempt to awaken the
sinner so he may rectify his situation, standing and state with God. But many
Christians, ones who are backslidden and indifferent, are also needing to be awakened
so that they may prepare themselves for the bema judgment. This spirit of slumber
manifests itself by:
1. Unconsciousness as to one’s real circumstances
2. Unconcern as to one’s present and eternal state
3. Inactivity in regard to the interests of eternity
4. Indulgence of fleshly appetites and desires
5. Delusive dreams as to one’s real condition
6. Helplessness and exposure to danger (Thomas Robinson, Studies in Romans:
Expository and Homiletical Commentary, 2:214).
11c “salvation” Our full, complete, consummated eternal salvation in heaven. We are
already saved as it is a present possession, but we will not come into our full and
complete salvation, our consummated salvation, until we reach heaven.
Also notice that Paul says our salvation is nearer than when we first believed.
He does not say since we were first baptized, confirmed, joined the church, went to
Mecca or took communion. None of these acts of religion contribute to salvation, only
believing does.
11d “now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.” It is one day closer
today than it was yesterday, and getting closer with every passing minute! The coming
of the Lord and the truth of the Bema Judgment are to serve as our motivations for holy
living.
*************************************************************************************************
13:12 The night is far spent,a-aorist the day is at hand:b-perfect let us therefore cast
offc-aorist subjunctive used as an imperative the works of darkness,d and let us put onaorist subjunctive
used as an imperative
the armor of light.e
368
12a “far spent” Or “has made a lot of progress”. Referring to the night of sin and evil,
in which time we currently are living in. If the night was “far spent” in Paul’s day 19002000 years ago, how much truer is it today?
12b “the day is at hand” That great millennial day of righteousness and holiness that
is fast approaching and for which all of God’s people are eagerly waiting. We are
currently in a night season in this world’s history, which don’t be lifted until the
millennium.
12c “cast off” As we would a filthy, soiled garment. Our Old Man of sin is just as a
filthy, stinking garment that no one in his right mind would want to wear (Psalm 119:18).
We also cast off our night clothes when we arise in the day. We wear different
garments when we sleep and when we are awake during the day. And these “works of
darkness” are not just to be “taken off” but cast off and tossed away, as an unwanted
garment.
The Apostle says, “cast off.” Let the habits of “your sinful nature be from now on
regarded as castoffs—cast them right away and say, “I have done with them! There will
not be another night for me and, therefore, I shall not need them. Bury them, burn
them—they are my castoffs.”
“The old garments of our sins and lusts must be put off if we are to put on Christ.
To wear two sets of clothes at the same time is as difficult as it is foolish. “It will be an
idle attempt to try and wear religion as a sort of celestial overall over the top of old sins.
The King’s daughter is all glorious within, or she would never have received her clothing
of worked gold. The vision of Zechariah teaches us the way of the Lord—when he saw
Joshua clothed with filthy garments, the Lord did not put upon him a goodly vesture over
these—but He first said, “Take away the filthy garments from him.” And then He added,
“Behold, I have caused your iniquity to pass from you, and I will clothe you with change
of raiment.” You must be cleansed in the blood of Jesus before you can be clothed in
the white linen which is the righteousness of the saints! See to it that, being awakened
out of your sleep, you cast off all the garments of the night! (Charles Spurgeon,
“Dressing in the Morning” in Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, volume 27, sermon 1614).”
12d “works of darkness” Works of sin and unrighteousness, which belong to the old
nature and are usually practiced in the night seasons.
12e “armor of light” Of righteousness and holiness.
Straighten up and fly right! Cast off those sins that we are allowing to bind us
and drag us down. Get working on your sanctification and on developing that strong
and deep relationship with God. We haven’t much more time before the bema seat
judgment (Romans 14) and the millennial day, so we must get out spiritual house in
order now, while it is yet day and while we still have opportunity.
****************************************************************************************************
369
13:13 Let us walka-aorist subjunctive used as an imperative honestly,b as in the day;c not in
riotingd-e and drunkenness, not in chamberingf and wantonness,g not in strife and
envying.h
13a Conduct ourselves, or live.
13b “honestly” Let us live and behave in a decent, moral and respectable manner.
13c “in the day” We generally put off clothes when we sleep at night. This may
explain why so many unsaved people have so little use for clothing- they are asleep in
the night! But since the day is dawning (referring to the millennium), we must do
spiritually what we do physically at the dawn of every day- cast off our bedclothes of the
night and put on our daily apparel to meet the day. We do notice a most irritating habit
of some, especially girls, to wear pajama bottoms in public,. This only speaks to the
slob culture and low living that is so popular in our day.
13d The 6 sins listed in this verse are generally night sins, not practiced in the full day
of the sun’s shining but rather in the hidden dens of iniquity of the night.
13e “rioting” Strong’s #2970 kwmov kômos; a revel, carousal, a nocturnal and riotous
procession of half drunken and frolicsome fellows who after supper parade through the
streets with torches and music in honor of Bacchus or some other deity, and sing and
play before houses of male and female friends; hence used generally of feasts and
drinking parties that are protracted till late at night and indulge in revelry. The ESV uses
“orgies” here. Christians certainly have no business partaking in riots or street
demonstrations that are so popular today, especially among certain liberal racial groups
and instigated by rabble-rousers.
13f “chambering” Strong’s #2845 koith koitê; a place for laying down, resting,
sleeping, of adultery, cohabitation, whether lawful or unlawful, sexual intercourse. Used
only here. The ESV uses “sexual immorality”. “Although ‘chambering’ is formed from
the noun ‘chamber’, it means sexual indulgence or lewdness (Laurence Vance, Archaic
Words and the Authorized Version, page 63).” The word is related to the English
“bedchamber”, showing that “chambering” has something to do with sexual sins in the
bedroom.
13g “wantonness” Strong’s #766 aselgeia aselgeia; unbridled lust, excess,
licentiousness, lasciviousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness,
insolence.
“The word is from the Middle English ‘wantowen’ literally meaning ‘untrained’, as
it is from ‘wan’ ‘lacking’ and ‘towen’, ‘to train’. Thus, ‘wanton’ originally meant
undiscipled, untrained, uneducated or unruly. It later came to mean malicious, reckless,
merciless or unprovoked; extragavant or excessive, also lewd or lascivious (Laurence
370
Vance, Archaic Words and the Authorized Version, page 370).” The ESV uses
“sensuality”.
13h There was no good reason for the ESV to change “strife and envying” to
“quarrelling and jealousy”. Everyone knows what “strife” and “envying” is. The ESV can
be excused for updating “chambering” and “wantonness” but they went too far with
these last two words.
****************************************************************************************************
114. Put On The Lord Jesus Christ 13:14
13:14 Bu put ye ona-b-aorist middle imperative the Lord Jesus Christ, and makeimperative not
provisionc for the flesh,d to fulfill the lustse thereof.
14a “put ye on” As one would put on a clean, fresh garment. Christ is not only our
food and our life, but is also our dress.
14b The believer’s dress casts every other into the shade. It is:
1. Costly- cost the King of glory His life- Philippians 2:6-8
2. Comfortable- fills the soul with peace and joy- Romans 15:13
3. Complete- leaves no part of the body or soul exposed- Colossians 2:10
4. Comely- in the eyes of God, men and angels- Ezekiel16:14
5. Glorious- the image of Christ- 2 Corinthians 3:18
6. Durable- never wears out or waxes old- Hebrews 13:8
7. Divine- Jehovah our Righteousness- Jeremiah 23:6 (Thomas Robinson,
Studies in Romans: Expository and Homiletical Commentary, 2:225).
14c “make no provision” Give it no quarter, nor give it any opportunity to manifest
itself, even for a minute.
The Geneva renders this as “give no thought to the flesh” which is also good, but
the King James use “no provision” is sharper as it has the idea of not giving the flesh
(old nature) any supplies or provisions- starve it!
14d The Geneva has a weaker reading of “take no thought for the flesh”. The reading
“make no provision” is better as it has the idea of giving nothing to the old nature that
would encourage it or assist it in exerting its lusts. Even the ESV uses “provision” here.
14e “lusts” All the flesh has are lusts and none of them are good. They are all hurtful
and damnable. Most of what the flesh wants is based on lusts. The idea of “lust” is a
very strong and driving desire to have something that is forbidden to it. Thus, most lusts
are sinful and motivated to do nothing more than to fulfill the appetites of the old man
and our fallen nature.
371
372
Romans Chapter 14
115. The Weaker Brother 14:1-9
The companion section to this is found in 1 Corinthians 8, which especially deals with
the food issue, which was a major one in Corinth.
*************************************************************************************************
14:1 Him that is weakpresent active participle in the faitha-b receivec-imperative ye, but not to
doubtful disputations.d
1a The "weaker brother" ("weak in the faith") is a man who is not well-grounded in
truth or doctrine. He is not very advanced or mature or settled in the faith and in his walk
with God. Naturally, he is more likely to be "knocked off his pins" by a doctrinal issue or
a false teacher.
The weak Christian is:
1. Not firmly settled
2. Not fully enlightened
3. Not far advanced
This term was often applied to Jewish converts to Christianity who, due to their
legalistic upbringing, would have had trouble in this area, especially with regards to
foods and the observance of certain “holy” days. It is a somewhat pejorative title. But
we should not automatically assume that all weaker brothers were Jewish and all
stronger brothers were Gentile, for the Gentile believers certainly had their problems
and offenses.
1b “The faith” the Biblical faith that is, the only one that is true for it is the only one sent
down and endorsed by God.
1c “receive” Admit to fellowship, both personally and into the fellowship of the local
congregation.
1d The "doubtful disputation" is that problem that is staggering the weaker brother.
There is usually no real problem with doctrine unless it involves a weaker brother who
gets suckered into some unimportant doctrinal or practical controversy, thus causing
division in the church. These "doubtful disputations" usually get started when a young
Christian gets carried away with some new wind of doctrine. Because it sounds good,
he picks it up. He may not be mature enough in the Book to be able to check the issue
out on his own. Examples are the problems young Christians may have concerning
Sabbath-keeping, Freemasonry, Bible versions, television and television preachers,
eating meat, shopping on Sunday and so on.
“Many new converts in Paul's day were converted out of paganism that had been
practiced by their forefathers for many years. Many of them were saved without knowing
anything whatsoever about Christianity. During Paul's day converts came from ex373
idolaters, ascetics, legalists, and Judaism. The new converts are to be received without
doubtful disputations; that is, "judging unmercifully," or "for purposes of debate. (John
Gregson)."
“disputation” The Tyndale and Coverdale have this as not troubling his
conscience. The other versions have the idea of not starting controversies being
involved in bringing this brother into the church.
****************************************************************************************************
14:2a For one believethpresent that he may eataorist infinitive all things:b-c another, who is
weak,present active participle eatethpresent herbs.d
2a Paul gives an example of one of these "unimportant" doctrinal problems that plague
weaker Christians: "Should a Christian eat meat or be a vegetarian?" Paul calls the
"herb eater" the weaker one in this case for he feels himself to be under the bondage of
some unwritten scriptural command that he should not eat meat. He doesn't know
about Genesis 9:3, Leviticus 11 or Luke 24:43 (where the Lord ate fish).
The burning issue here was also "Should Christians eat meat offered to idols?" (1
Corinthians 8). Meat was offered to idols in the pagan temples. The priests could not
eat all of it so it was sold in the marketplace. Christians shopping in the marketplace
had no way of knowing what meat had come the temple and what hadn't. The stronger
Christians didn't care where the meat came from and ate it anyway, giving God thanks
for a good meal (1 Corinthians 8:4). The weaker Christian, ignorant of that principle (1
Corinthians 8:7a), didn't eat any meat- just to be safe from eating heathen meat. He
would worry himself to death over the issue. He also would be offended by the
“stronger brother” eating what he did. Paul says that each side is not to judge the other
in cases like this. If the weaker brother feels more "spiritual" in not eating meat, let him
at it and don't condemn him. The weaker man should not condemn the meat eater for
not accepting his code of conduct in the matter just because the meat-eater doesn't
believe the same way.
2b “may eat all things” Without respect to:
1. The Mosaic/ceremonial distinction of meats- Leviticus 11
2. Where the meat came from- 1 Corinthians 10:25,28
2c Paul does not condemn the man who believes he may eat all things since the
ceremonial law was fulfilled in Christ, thus freeing the Jewish believer from observing it,
and because it was never given to the Gentiles and is thus, not binding on them. Many
Christians may not choose to eat some meats for health reasons, or simply because
they do not like meat, and there is no problem with that. But to refuse meat for a
theological reason has little Scriptural support and probably shows an ignorance of
dispensational distinctives, in that the Mosaic dietary laws are not binding of Gentiles
and were fulfilled by Christ on the cross. A practicing Jew will still want to observe the
dietary laws but the Gentile has no Scriptural reason to do so.
374
2d “herbs” Could Paul have had in mind any certain party or sect of “militant
vegetarians” in Rome?
This verse does not place vegetarianism or any form of asceticism in a very good
light, for by definition of this verse, these people are spiritually weak. Vegetarianism for
health’s sake or because one simply doesn’t like meat is not condemned. Placing a
spiritual reason behind vegetarianism is condemned. Many New Agers and other
spiritualists and nature-worshippers are guilty of this and thus are deemed to be
spiritually weaker than a Christian who is strong enough to eat meat. This also includes
the Christian ascetics who were popular in the early church times up to the Reformation,
who would move into the desert and eat bugs and twigs in an effort to “purify” their
bodies and soul.
****************************************************************************************************
14:3 Let not him that eatethpresent active participle despisea--imperative him that eateth
not;present active participle and let not him which eateth not judgeimperative him that
eateth:present active participle for God hath receivedaorist middle him.b
3a “despise” We have no license to look down on our brother in this fashion for any
reason.
Strong’s #1848 exouyenew exoutheneô; to make of no account, despise utterly, to
throw out as nothing
3b The thing eaten might be condemned but not the person eating it, since nothing that
enters a man from without can defile him- including the eating of “unclean meats”
(Matthew 15:11,20).
****************************************************************************************************
14:4 Who art thou that judgesta-present active participle another man's servant? to his
own master he standethpresent or falleth.b-present Yea, he shall be holden up:future passive
for God ispresent able to make him stand.c-d--aorist infinitive
4a “Who art thou that judgest “ This is the language of rebuke, aimed at the weaker
brother. Who do you think you are, imagining that you are qualified or spiritual enough
to judge a brother in this situation? Do you think you are the Holy Spirit? And would
you be willing to submit yourself to a similar judgment on that same basis on which you
are judging?
4b “to his own master he standeth or falleth” God does the judging of Christians, not
“the brethren”. And the man doing the judging is not the “master” of the brother he is
judging. God is his master, so leave that judgment to God. One servant should not be
judging another servant. Only masters judge servants.
4c “God is able to make him stand” Someone else (God) is holding him up- he does
hold himself up by the power of his beliefs, spirituality or convictions.
375
4d Principle: If a doctrinal issue arises that falls into one of two categories:
1. Does not affect any "major" doctrine (salvation, God/Trinity, Christ, Second
Coming...)
2. Where the Scripture gives no clear revelation. Don't judge your brother
over it. Your "preference" in such a matter is not a sufficient basis for judgment.. If that
Christian is in the wrong over a matter, the Lord will straighten him out- that's His job,
not yours. A Christian may render a judgment if the issue is clearly dealt with in
Scripture and if the position of the weaker brother is clearly wrong (For example,
denying the Trinity or that Sunday-worship is the mark of the beast"). We are forbidden
to judge issues that are not clearly dealt with in Scripture. Examples:
1. Where did Cain get his wife?
2. Who are the Sons of God in Genesis 6?
3. Can a woman wear earrings and makeup?
4. Shopping or going out to eat on Sunday
5. Should a Christian watch television or go to the movies?
****************************************************************************************************
14:5 One man esteemethpresent one day above another: another esteemethpresent
every day alike.a Let every man be fully persuadedimperative in his own mind.b
5a The Jewish Christians were still observing the Sabbath while the Gentiles believers
were observing Sunday. Hence, there was contention in the churches. This could also
apply to the Jewish feast days, which the Jewish Christians would still probably
observe, but that would mean nothing to the Gentile believers. But doubtless some
Gentiles were attracted to sabbath-keeping, as Seventh-Day Adventists and even the
Seventh-Day Baptists (stronger in the American colonial days than today) are even
today. Messianic groups still observe the Sabbath, even those that are populated by
Gentile believers.
5b “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind “ You should have a rational,
reasonable and Scriptural basis for everything you believe and for every conviction you
hold.
*************************************************************************************************
14:6 He that regardetha-present active participle the day, regardetha-present it unto the Lord;
and he that regardeth nota-present active participle the day, to the Lord he doth not
regardpresent it. He that eateth,present active participle eatethpresent to the Lord, for he giveth
God thanks;present and he that eateth notpresent active participle to the Lord he eatethpresent
not, and giveth God thanksb-c-present
6a “regardeth” Strong’s #5426 fronew phroneô; to have understanding, be wise, to
feel, to think, to have an opinion of one’s self, think of one’s self, to be modest, not let
one’s opinion (though just) of himself exceed the bounds of modesty, to be of the same
376
mind i.e. agreed together, cherish the same views, be harmonious, to seek one’s
interest or advantage, to be of one’s party, side with him (in public affairs)
6b The issue here is two-fold:
1. Should I worship on Saturday or Sunday? There is no direct command that
Christians must worship on Sunday. We do have the example of Sunday worship of
Acts 20:7 but that’s about it. If he wants to worship on Saturday, let him (he sets a bad
example in so doing for he is gravitating Judaism, but that's his business- and liberty.)
2. Should I observe Easter, Christmas, Groundhog Day...? Some Christians like
to celebrate Easter and Christmas while others denounce it as pagan holidays. The
Bible does not come right out and forbid such activity (although it does discourage it)
a. Pagan background of Christmas
b. Easter- Acts 12:4 and its association with Herod
6c Some versions push the last part of the verse into verse 7.
***************************************************************************************************
14:7a For none of us liveth-present to himself, and no man diethpresent to himself.b
7a The Tyndale and Coverdale have different verse numbers in verses 6-8.
7b Since we are bought with a price, our lives (and deaths) are not our own but we
belong to the Lord.
*************************************************************************************************
14:8 For whether we live,present active subjunctive we livepresent unto the Lord; and whether
we die,present active subjunctive we diepresent active subjunctive unto the Lord: whether we livepresent
active subjunctive
therefore, or die,present active subjunctive we arepresent the Lord's.a
8a Since we do not live or die to ourselves but rather to the Lord, and since we are the
Lord's, all such activity must be judged on the basis of "What does the Lord think about
this?" and "How will this affect my testimony?" Our actions and attitudes will influence
others (especially weaker Christians)(14:7) and that must also be taken into
consideration (14:15,16,21). God must be consulted first on these things since it is He
who will ultimately judge us for what we decide. Our "brethren" may condemn us for
certain actions, but they are not the ones we will be standing before at the Judgment
Seat.
***************************************************************************************************
14:9 For to this end Christ both died,aorist and,aorist rose,aorist active and revived, aorist
that he might be Lordaorist active subjunctive both of the dead and living.b-present active
active
participle
9a “rose and revived” A double-barreled reference to the resurrection, where two
377
witnesses are given.
9b If the "weaker brother" is truly saved, he is still the Lord's, regardless of what we
might judge about him. He is the Lord's (14:8b,9), not ours. He is not ours to judge.
We didn't die for him and we didn't rise from the dead for his justification, so he is not
ours to judge.
*************************************************************************************************
116. The Bema Seat of Christ 14:10-12
14:10 But why dost thou judgepresent thy brother?a or why dost thou set at
naughtpresent thy brother? for we shall all stand beforefuture middle the judgment seat
of Christ.b-c-d
10a Paul asks why we are even judging our brother in the first place. Why do we waste
time judging others when we should be worried about the fact that we ourselves will be
judged by God . We (Christians) shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. This
is not the Great White Throne Judgment of Revelation 20 since Paul is addressing and
dealing with saints, not sinners.
10b “judgment seat” Strong’s #968 bhma bêma; a step, pace, the space which a foot
covers, a raised place mounted by steps, the official seat of a judge. Herod built a
structure resembling a throne at Caesarea, from which he viewed the games and made
speeches to the people.
10c Facts about the Judgment/Bema Seat
1. All Christians will stand there 14:10. It is a universal judgment that no
Christian can avoid.
2. Every knee shall bow 14:11. All will give the Lord the honor and reverence due
Him and honor him as their Judge!
3. Every tongue shall confess to God 14:11. Confess what? Our stewardship as
Christians
4. Works will be examined upon the basis of the holiness of God. Good works
shall endure, rejected works shall be burned- 1 Corinthians 3:10-15.
5. Rewards will be given out here- 1 Corinthians 3:14. These rewards will involve
our status in the Millennial Kingdom and in the eternal state.
6. Many will suffer loss here- 1 Corinthians 3:15. They will still be saved (as
though by fire- 1 Corinthians 3:16) but will have little to show for a reward of a life of
Christian service.
7. It is also called the Day of (Jesus) Christ in Philippians 1:6; 2:16; 2
Thessalonians 2:2.
8. The Aterror of the Lord@ is associated with it- 2 Corinthians 5:11.
9. Takes place immediately after the rapture- Revelation 4:1-3
378
10d Some commentators and modern versions change this to “Judgment Seat of God”
but for no good reason. All the manuscript evidence supports “Christ”. Besides, Christ
is the One Who will be doing the judging of His saints, so theologically, “Christ” is also
correct.
****************************************************************************************************
14:11 For it is written,a-perfect passive As Ib live, saithpresent the Lord, every knee shall
bowc-future to me, and every tongue shall confessd-future middle to God.
11a “For it is written “ Perfect tense- it has been written and remains written, not to be
changed or altered. It is a completed action with continuous results or the continuance
of an act completed in the past. The components are always a past action and
continuous results. References to the Scriptures like this are often presented in the
perfect tense. "The just shall live by faith" is one of those unalterable truths of
Christianity. This perfect tense in reference to New Testament references to Old
Testament texts is used 62 times in the New Testament, 16 times in Romans (1:17;
2:24; 3:4,10; 4:17; 8:36; 9:13,33; 10:15; 11:8,26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3,9,21). This usage
of the perfect is a strong argument for the verbal and plenary preservation of the
Scripture, as the written Old Testament word stands forever and continues to.
11b Emphatic.
11c “every knee shall bow” See Isaiah 45:23- at both the Bema Seat (context) and
further extended, at the Great White Throne Judgment of Revelation 20.
11d The Tyndale and Coverdale have the idea of making an acknowledgment to God.
****************************************************************************************************
14:12 So then every one of us shall givefuture account of himself to God.a-b
12a “shall give account of himself” Account not of our brother but of ourselves.
12b Account of what? Again, our stewardship as Christians. Not of sin, for that has
been paid for at Calvary by the blood of Christ. Rather, we will be judged by how we
worked for God as well as our motivations. This account is described in 1 Corinthians
3:12-15 as God examines the foundation on which we built our lives as Christians
1. Gold, silver, precious stones 3:12a. These are Christ-honoring works done
with the motivation to honor and glorify God.
2. Wood, hay, stubble 3:12b. Works for Christ done for the wrong motivations
and for the wrong reasons.
All of our work for Christ will be tested by fire (made manifest, shown openly as to what
sort it is 3:13). The gold, silver and precious stone works will survive that fire and be
purified while the wood, hay and stubble works will be consumed. What survives this
furnace will the the basis or foundation for our heavenly reward (if we have any left at
379
all!) (3:14,15). With all this in mind, we should be concentrating on our own spiritual
condition and be preparing for our own judgment instead of nitpicking over our brother's
faults.
*************************************************************************************************
117. Dealing With The Weaker Brother 14:13-21
Section 117 There are three exhortations in this section:
1. Consider the weaker brother 14:13-15
2. Take account of the effect of such controversies on the testimony of the
church 14:16-18
3. Edify each other 14:19-21
***************************************************************************************************
14:13 Let us not therefore judgeaorist subjunctive used as an imperative one another any more:a
but judgeaorist imperative this rather,b that no man putinfinitive a stumblingblockc or an
occasion to falld in his brother's way.
13a “Let us not therefore judge one another any more” There was obviously too
much of this going on in the church- just like today. It is not a profitable exercise and it
helps no one nor does it edify the church or glorify God, so there is no good reason to
continue in it.
13b “judge this rather” If you insist on judging, here is something worth your
judgment! Instead of judging our brother's faults ourselves, we should rather be
concerned that we are not our brother's problem! Am I putting stumblingblocks before
my brother in my pride?
13c “stumblingblock” Strong’s #4348 proskomma proskomma; a stumbling block, an
obstacle in the way which if one strikes his foot against he stumbles or falls, that over
which a soul stumbles, by which is caused to sin
13d “occasion to fall” Strong’s #4625 skandalon skandalon; the movable stick or
trigger of a trap, a trap stick, any impediment placed in the way and causing one to
stumble or fall, (a stumbling block, occasion of stumbling), a rock which is a cause of
stumbling, any person or thing by which one is (entrapped) drawn into error or sin.
****************************************************************************************************
14:14 I know,present and am persuadeda-perfect passive by the Lord Jesus,b that there is
nothing unclean of itself:c-d but to him that esteemethpresent middle/passive participle any
thing to be unclean, to hime it is unclean.
14a The Tyndale and Coverdale have the idea of being “certified”, another way of
saying that Paul was “persuaded”.
380
14b This was not Paul's own opinion but he said "I am persuaded by the Lord
Jesus..." It is a triple affirmation:
1. I know
2. I am persuaded
3...by the Lord Jesus Christ
14c “there is nothing unclean of itself” Paul seems to be taking the side of the
Stronger Brother here and numbers himself with the strong, which he also does in
14:20.
14d Paul says there is nothing unclean in itself (14:14,20), but only that we judge as
unclean. By saying that something that the weaker brother is doing is unclean when it
really isn't is putting stumblingblocks in the path of the race he is trying to run.
Matthew 15:17-20 says that the things that go into a man (meats in this context)
do not defile the man. The context is there is no food that is in of itself unclean, an
obvious reference to the ceremonial Mosaic dietary laws (Leviticus 11) not being
binding on a Christian. Oliver Greene once said "You can eat a turkey buzzard, as long
as you gave God thanks for it!" But the principle here is that if you're offended by me
eating that turkey buzzard, I won't eat it as long as you're around.
14e Emphatic.
*************************************************************************************************
14:15a But if thy brother be grievedpresent middle with thy meat, now walkest thou
notpresent charitably. Destroyimperative not himb with thy meat, for whom Christ
died.aorist
15a We could also be putting stumblingblocks in our brother's path by creating
situations in which he might be offended. Example- my brother won't eat meat. That is
his conviction (like Lester Roloff!). I invite him to my house for dinner and serve up pork
chops, ham and steak. Instead of respecting his convictions and beliefs, I just placed
him in a very difficult situation. His beliefs are not to blame but rather my
thoughtlessness!
15b Emphatic.
**************************************************************************************************
14:16 Let not then your gooda be evil spoken of:b-imperative
16a The Tyndale and Coverdale use “treasure” and the Geneva has “commodity”.
They seem to understand the word in an economic way.
16b Don't allow your convictions to ruin another Christian simply because they don't
381
share them. You are to judge other believers according to revealed and clear Biblical
principles, not your convictions.
****************************************************************************************************
14:17 For the kingdom of Goda ispresent not meat and drink;b but righteousness,
and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.c
17a The "Kingdom of God" is the spiritual aspect of heaven (John 3) while the
"Kingdom of Heaven" is the literal, earthly, political aspect of the government of God
(entire book of Matthew).
17b The basis for the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink (or the carnal things of
this life) but rather righteousness, joy and peace. What a man eats or drinks won't
exclude him from heaven, but rather is he born again?
17c There are three elements of the spiritual aspect of God’s kingdom:
1. Righteousness- imputed by Christ to us
2. Peace- with ourselves, our fellow brethren and with God
3. Joy in the Holy Ghost. There is something very wrong with a miserable
Christian or a joyless Christian life. This joy is from the Holy Ghost and is from the Holy
Ghost and is centered around the things of God and is based upon them.
All born-again men who are a part of this spiritual kingdom partake of these
benefits.
**************************************************************************************************
14:18 For he that in these things servethpresent active participle Christ is acceptable to
God,a and approved of men.b
18a If he is "acceptable to God", then why not to the judging Christian?
18b “approved of men” Especially by good men and by spiritual men.
***************************************************************************************************
14:19 Let us therefore follow after-present subjunctive active the things which make for
peace,a and things wherewith one may edify another.b
19a “the things which make for peace” This is “irenics”, which is the theological
attempt to reconcile differing theological systems and interpretations. This is a very
honorable heart and activity but very few take this hope up as their ministry. This peace
does not come naturally but must be worked for, pursued and desired after to achieve.
It will require the swallowing of theological and human pride, a genuine love for the
brethren and truth, and a desire for the glory of God which would result from a more
united front to the unsaved world.
382
19b The ESV has “mutual upbuilding” which is no improvement over “edify another”.
***************************************************************************************************
14:20 For meat destroypresent not the work of God.a All things indeed are pure; but
it is evil for that man who eatethpresent active participle with offense.b
20a “meat destroy not the work of God” Eating ceremonially unclean foods does not
cause a man to lose his salvation, lose his sanctification or to be disqualified from the
ministry or to lose favor with God. Control your appetite for the spiritual welfare of your
weaker brother! Don't let your appetite contribute to his spiritual problems.
20b “it is evil for that man who eateth with offense” The only time something "pure"
(14:13,20) becomes "evil" is when it is eaten with offense, or eaten in order to offend a
Christian who has a conviction against what you're eating.
****************************************************************************************************
14:21a It is good neither to eataorist infinitive flesh, nor to drinkaorist infinitive wine,b nor any
thing whereby thy brother stumbleth,present or is offended,present middle or is made
weak.c-d-present
21a This verse is a maxim for the strong.
21b “eat flesh…drink wine” These are two major points of contention for the weaker
brother.
21c Principle: Don't make your brother stumble. If you want to eat something that he
has a conviction about, don't do it (at least while he is around). The same principle can
be applied to any other situation that may arise between two Christians. You need to
make sure that in this issue, you are not wrong. Is what I'm doing sin? Is that why my
brother is offended? If it is sin, I must stop it. If I am not sinning, then I need to
accommodate my brother. The issue is also one of pride. Are you going to
accommodate your weaker brother or are you going to insist he "shape up and fly right"
and try to drag him up to your "level" spiritually?
21d The last five words of this verse are omitted in most modern versions, including the
ESV.
****************************************************************************************************
118. Whatsoever Is Not Of Faith Is Of Sin 14:22,23
14:22 Hastpresent thoua faith?b haveimperative it to thyself before God. Happy is he that
condemnethpresent active participle not himself in that thing which he alloweth.c-present
22a Emphatic.
383
22b The ESV removes the question and makes it a statement.
22c If you are spiritual ("Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God"), don't flaunt it
before your brother to make yourself look good or to down him. That is motivated not
by your brother's best interests but by spiritual pride. Stop trying to impress everyone
with your learning, where you went to school, or how high your standards and
convictions are compared with your brethren. This is a high and a haughty attitude that
irritates the Lord and men, edifies no one and sets you up for a major fall.
***************************************************************************************************
14:23 And he that doubtethpresent middle/passive participle is damned-present passive if he eat,aorist
subjunctive
because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith ispresent sin.a-b
23a The condemnation in eating or drinking comes when it is not done on a basis of
faith but of accommodation or doubt. He does not eat or drink because he has a
Biblical conviction that he may, but for some other reason that is not based on Scripture.
He does not drink with a moral and spiritual certainty that he is right.
23b This goes in context with the Judgment Seat of Christ and how we will be judged
according to our methods and motivations in our Christian lives and service. We will not
be judged just on if we did something, but how we did it (whether we used Biblical
methods and means or worldly ones) and why we did it- what our motivations were. A
man may preach. Why does he preach? Because momma and daddy want him to?
Because others expect him him to? Because it’s an easy job? Then he will be damned
(condemned) for it at the Judgment Seat because he did not do it of faith. He did not do
it because God called him and he was serving God, but rather, for carnal reasons. The
same could be said for missionaries, Sunday School teachers, deacons, etc. What
about soulwinners? You claim you lead 5,000 souls to the Lord and baptized 2500 of
them? Why? What were your motivations for your “soulwinning?” To glorify Christ or
self? Did you do it because you loved those souls or so that your pastor or other
pastors wouldn’t think ill of you, or to impress someone with your “zeal”? If your
methods or motivations were anything but Godly or Biblical, you will be damned at the
Judgment Seat for it- you will not be commended and you will receive no rewards for
that service since you did do it “of faith”.
384
Romans Chapter 15
119. Bearing the Infirmities of the Weak 15:1-3
15:1 We then that are stronga ought present to bear present middle/passive participle the
infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.b
1a “We then that are strong” Paul classifies himself as a "stronger" brother in the
context of Romans 14.
1b Seeking to please ourselves is selfish. The genuine Christian spirit is to think
more highly of our brother than of ourselves and seek to serve and minister unto others
rather than self.
The Tyndale, Coverdale and Bishops all have a rather wordy rendering of this
last phrase. The Geneva, King James and ESV update it and tighten it up.
**************************************************************************************************
15:2 Let every one of us please present imperative his neighbor for his good to
edification.a-b
2a We should do this not to make ourselves look good or to give us an excuse to show
off spiritually, but for the good of our neighbor, whom we are supposed to love as we
love ourselves.
2b This is not a contradiction with Galatians 1:10, where Paul said he did not seek to
please men. Naturally, there are two different contexts here. In Galatians 1, Paul is
talking about preaching so as to please men instead of pleasing God, or preaching for
approval, advancement, fame and/or money. Here in Romans 15, Paul is still talking
about accommodating the “weaker brother” of Romans 14 and making sure we do not
needlessly offend his over-sensitive conscience.
The Coverdale adds the idea of helping his “wealth”. The ESV is weaker with
“build him up” when there is no good reason to change “edify” as that is not an archaic
word.
****************************************************************************************************
15:3 For even Christ pleased aorist not himself:a but, as it is written, b-perfect passive
The reproaches of them that reproached present active participle thee fell aorist on me.c
3a Christ pleased not Himself but concentrated His ministry toward others. He took
the form of a servant and servants serve others, not themselves (Philippians 2:6). He
sought to please the Father and to fulfill His will on the earth, not His own will. That
attitude should be ours as well. Do you want to talk about bearing the burdens of the
weaker brother? Christ did it during His earthly ministry as He trained twelve very weak
men. And He does it with us on a constant basis, for how weak and easily offended are
385
we!
There was a book put out years ago by Gale Sayers, a running back for the
Chicago Bears, published in 1970. The book was entitled I Am Third, where the idea
was “God is first, my friends are second and I am third”. That’s a good attitude fot the
Christian to have, except it is not just “my friends” that are second but my neighbor,
whether they are my friends or not.
3b “as it is written” Perfect tense- it has been written and remains written, not to be
changed or altered. It is a completed action with continuous results or the continuance
of an act completed in the past. The components are always a past action and
continuous results. References to the Scriptures like this are often presented in the
perfect tense. "The just shall live by faith" is one of those unalterable truths of
Christianity. This perfect tense in reference to New Testament references to Old
Testament texts is used 62 times in the New Testament, 16 times in Romans (1:17;
2:24; 3:4,10; 4:17; 8:36; 9:13,33; 10:15; 11:8,26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3,9,21). This usage
of the perfect is a strong argument for the verbal and plenary preservation of the
Scripture, as the written Old Testament word stands forever and continues to.
3c The last part of the verse is quoted from Psalm 69:9,20. “He took the most trying
place in the whole field of battle; he stood where the fray was hottest. He did not seek to
be among his disciples as a king is in the midst of his troops, guarded and protected in
the time of strife; but he exposed himself to the fiercest part of all the conflict. What
Jesus did, that should we who are his followers do, no one of us considering himself,
and his own interests, but all of us considering our brethren and the cause of Christ in
general (Charles Spurgeon).”
****************************************************************************************************
120. The Purpose of the Old Testament 15:4
15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetimea-aorist passive were writtenaorist
passive
for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures
might have present subjunctive hope.
4a “whatsoever things were written aforetime”A reference to the Old Testament as
none of the New Testament may have yet been written. Paul says we are to study the
Old Testament because the things that are contained in it were written for our learning.
To neglect the study, preaching and teaching of the Old Testament is to disobey the
verse. We need the Old Testament and we cannot understand or properly apply the
New Testament without a proper understanding of the Old Testament.
These things in the Old Testament were written for our learning, for two main
reasons:
1. To help us better understand the New Testament. You cannot understand the
New Testament without a mastery of the Old Testament.
2. The Old Testament histories give us examples of how the saints of old
386
handled the spiritual challenges and trials in their lives, how they met their own
generations, and how God dealt with them.
3. The benefits of the study of Scripture (including the Old Testament, which is as
much Scripture as is the New Testament) are hope through patience and comfort. Only
the Bible can give both hope and comfort, as no other book can. This is what Paul
means when he says that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might
have hope.
****************************************************************************************************
121. Unity Enjoined 15:5-12
15:5a Now the God of patience and consolation grant aorist active optative you to be
likemindedb- present middle/passive participle one toward another according to Christ
Jesus:c
5a Two titles of God here:
1. God of patience
2. God of consolation
Also see 15:13.
5b “likeminded” Unity of heart, doctrine and purpose are requirements for a
successful church. God knows we will not agree on every single jot and tittle and there
will always be some level of disagreements in a local church, but overall, we should be
unified as to the great fundamental doctrines of the faith, our vision and how we do what
we do in the church. This is repeated in 15:6.
5c The Tyndale and Bishops have this as “example of Christ”.
****************************************************************************************************
15:6 That ye may with one mind and one moutha-b glorify present subjunctive God, even
the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
6a “one mind…one mouth” as in 15:5. This is divine unity of heart, mind, soul and
purpose, that all genuine believers ought to have. The ESV changes “mouth” to “voice”.
6b “People generally make one of two mistakes concerning Christian unity. First, that
there must be absolute unanimity of opinion on all points of doctrine; and second, that
there must be external unity of all so-called "Christian bodies."
We have alluded to the second of these ideas as of Satanic origin, and deluded
human consent. But now, as to the first, the desire of the apostle in verse 5, that the
God of patience and of comfort grant you to be of the same mind one with another
according to Christ Jesus does not have reference to opinions or views of doctrines, but
does have reference to gracious dispositions of spirit; for God is not spoken of here as
the God of wisdom and knowledge, but as the God of patience and of comfort. It is
387
God's acting in these blessed graces toward the saints that will enable them to be "of
one mind together according to Christ Jesus."
When the Spirit of God is freely operating among a company of believers, the
eyes of all of them, first, are toward Christ Jesus. They are thinking of Him, of His love,
of His service, and of what will please Him. They are conscious of their blessed place in
Him. Then follow, naturally, patient dealing with one another, comforting one another.
Some of the company may know much more truth than others; many may hold varying
judgments or opinions concerning particular matters. But